

riass 

/f// 

















64th Congress, ) HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. ( Document 
M Session. ) - (No. 1813. 




% 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 

_ 

LETTER 

FROM 

THE SECRETARY OF WAR, 

TRANSMITTING, 


WITH A LETTER FROM THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, REPORTS ON 
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION AND SURVEY OF THE MERRI¬ 
MACK RIVER, MASS., FROM LOWELL TO THE SEA, AND ON PRE¬ 
LIMINARY EXAMINATION OF MERRIMACK RIVER, FROM 
LOWELL, MASS., TO MANCHESTER, N. H. 

\ Q \ 

\j\. C ‘ f ^ 

' N ' ^ 

January 2, 1917. —Referred to the Committee' on Rivers and Harbors and 

ordered to be printed, with illustrations. 


War Department, 
Washington, Deceiriber 22, 1916. 


The Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Sir : I have the honor to transmit herev^ith a letter from the Chief 
of Engineers, United States Army, of yesterday’s date, with reports 
on preliminary examination and survey of Merrimack River, Mass., 
from Lowell to the sea, and preliminary examination of Merrimack 
River from Lowell to Manchester, N. H. 

Very respectfully, 

Newton D. Baker, 

Secretary of War. 


War Department, 

Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

W ashing ton, December 21, 1916. 

From: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army. 

To: The Secretary of War. 

Subject: Preliminary examination and survey of Merrimack River, 
Mass and N. H. 

1. There are submitted herewith, for transmission to Congress, 
report dated March 29, 1913, by Col. F. V. Abbot, Corps of Engi¬ 
neers, and report dated November 10,1914, with maps, by Lieut. Col. 





















2 


MEERIMACK RIVER; MASS. AND N. H. 



W. E. Craighill, Corps of Engineers, on preliminary examination 
and snrA^ey, respectively, authorized by the river and harbor act 
approved July 25, 1912, of Merrimack Kiver, Mass., with a view to 
securing increased depth from LoAvell tb the sea or in any pait ot 
this section of the river, together Avith a supplemental report on this 
subject by Col. Craighill, dated October 22, 1915. There is also 
submitted hereAAuth report dated March 25, 1916, by Col. Ciaighill, 
on preliminary examination authorized by the river and harbor act 
appiwed March 4, 1915, of Merrimack Eiver, from Lowell, Mass., 
to Manchester, N. II. On account of the close relationship of the 
tAA^o investigations, it is deemed advisable to print these reports in 
one document. 

2. This stream is formed by the confluence of the Pemigewasset 
and Winnepesaukee RiA^ers at Franklin, N. H., from which point 
to its mouth is a distance of about 110 miles. Hunts Falls, at 
Lowell, the upper end of the proposed improA^ement, is about 38 
miles from the sea. The harbor of NeAvburyport, at the mouth, is 
being improA^ed under a project providing for a permanent channel 
through the outer bar 1,000 feet AAude and at least 17 feet deep at 
mean Ioaa^ AA'ater, to be secured by the construction of tAAm jetties, 
with dredging if found advisable. The total expenditures to June 
30, 1915, amounted to $474,248.74, and the project AA^as then about 
97 per cent completed. The existing project for improvement of 
the Merrimack River, adopted by the act of March 3, 1899, provides 
for obtaining a channel 7 feet deep at mean Ioav Avater, 150 feet 
Avide, from Newburyport to the railroad bridge at Haverhill, a dis¬ 
tance of 16*1 miles, at an estimated cost of $171,442.70. Under pres¬ 
ent and previous projects for the river the expenditures to June 30, 
1915, amounted to $404,268.80, making a total of $878,517.54 ex¬ 
pended on Merrimack RiA^er and NeAvburyport Harbor. The mean 
tidal range is 7.9 feet at the mouth and 4.6 feet at Haverhill. The 
depths noAv available at mean Ioav water are 13 feet through the bar 
at the mouth up to Black Rocks beacon, thence about 9 feet to New¬ 
buryport, thence at least 14 feet to a point locally knoAvn as the 
Lions Mouth, and thence at least 7 feet to the railroad bridge at 
FlaA'erhill, which is situated about 20J miles from the bar. Above 
the Haverhill railroad bridge the channel is shalloAv, narroAv, and 
tortuous, and is not navigated. 

3. By an act approved June 20, 1914, the Legislature of the State 
of Massachusetts appropriated the sum of $1,000,000 “ for the im- 
proA^ement for navigation of the Merrimac River from the sea to 
Hunts Falls at Lowell, by the construction of a channel therein: 
Provided^ That no part of said sum shall be available or expended 
until the Congress of the United States shall approve a project, and 
make an appropriation therefor, to improve that part of said riA^er 
from the sea to a point opposite lYard Hill, about one mile above 
Haverhill, so that a continuous channel Avill be provided throughout 
this part of said river not less than eighteen feet deep at mean Ioav 
Avater and of adequate Avidth.” The Merrimack Valley Waterway 
Board has submitted an estimate of the cost of extending the chan¬ 
nel about 15.3 miles from AVard Hill to Hunts Falls, LoAvell, amount¬ 
ing to $5,443,600, exclusiA^e of land damages and bridge removal, 
new bridges, alterations, etc. The district officer gives consideration 



MEKEIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 3 

to several methods of improvement to secure a channel 18 feet deep 
and 200 feet wide from the mouth to Ward Hill. The plan sug¬ 
gested as most economical provides for the excavation of a tidal 
channel from Black Bocks Beacon to Lions Mouth, construction of 
lock and dam at Lions Mouth, and excavation of channel above dam 
to AVard Hill, all at an estimated cost of $2,750,000. The district 
officer is of opinion that no additional improvement at the bar is 
necessary at present. The construction of the dam at Lions Mouth 
will render unnecessary the dam at Mitchells Falls and the lock at 
Ward Hill, as proposed by the Merrimack Valley Waterway Boards 
thus reducing the estimate of cost to $4,326,600, for work from Ward 
ITill^to Hunts Falls, making a total estimate for the entire project 
of $7,076,600, not including the cost of necessary terminal and trans¬ 
fer facilities, changes in bridges and power plants, etc, 

4. The commerce now carried by water on the improved stretch be¬ 
tween Haverhill and Newburyport averages about 100,000 tons per 
year, consisting mostly of coal, on which there is reported to be a 
saving of from 35 to 50 cents per ton on the cost of carriage by rail. 
The total inward and outward commerce of Lowell, Lawrence, and 
Haverhill has been estimated by the Merrimack Valley 4Vaterway 
Board as about 5,000,000 tons annually. The proportion of this 
commerce which would follow the improved waterway can not, of 
course, be predetermined, being dependent in a large measure upon 
the disposition of local interests to utilize the new route in preference 
to existing rail facilities. The district officer reaches the conclusion 
that the benefits to be expected are so uncertain, and the physical 
difficulties, and consequently the cost, are so great that the improve¬ 
ment should not be undertaken by the General Government. The 
division engineer believes that the improvement might be justified 
under certain conditions of State cooperation. 

5. There is now no water-borne commerce on the section of river 
between Lowell and Manchester, a distance of about 35 miles, and 
as the work would be very expensive the district officer is of opinion 
that this part of the river is not worthy of improvement by the 
United States under present conditions for the reason that the bene¬ 
fits to be expected would not be commensurate with the cost involved. 
The division engineer concurs in this view. 

6. These reports have been referred, as required by law, to the 
Board of Engineers for Bivers and Harbors, and attention is in¬ 
vited to its reports herewith, dated May 23, 1916, and June 6, 1916. 
The board concurs with the district officer and the division engineer 
in the opinion that it is not advisable for the United States to under¬ 
take the improvement of the river between Lowell and Manchester. 
With reference to the project from Black Bocks Beacon to Hunts 
Falls, near Lowell, which is estimated to cost $7,076,600, and for 
which the State has appropriated $1,000,000, the board is of opinion 
that the proposed Federal expenditure of the balance, amounting to 
approximately $6,000,000, would not be warranted by the resulting 
benefits to the general public. It believes, however, that the interests, 
ic be affected are of sufficient magnitude to justify the United States 
in entering upon this project on a more equitable basis of coopera¬ 
tion. If the improvement be undertaken it should be carried to 
Hunts Falls and executed as one project by the United States. In 


4 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


Ihe opinion of the board it is advisable for the United States to 
undertake the improvement at a total estimated cost of $7,076,600, 
substantially in accordance with the plans proposed by the district 
officer and the Merrimack Valley Waterway Board, subject to such 
modifications in the details of the plans as may be found advisable 
by the Chief of Engineers during the progress of the work, the 
United States to pay one-half of this first cost and assume subse¬ 
quent maintenance, care, and operation, and the State or other local 
interests to pay one-half of the first cost and assume all responsibility 
for cost of rights of way, flowage claims, bridge alterations, and 
damages to existing Avater power or other interests, provided that 
the work be not commenced until assurance satisfactory to the Secre¬ 
tary of War has been given that the State of Massachusetts or local 
interests are prepared to cooperate on this basis. 

7. After consideration of the above-mentioned reports it seemed 
to me that certain features of the case were not adequately presented, 
and I therefore called upon the district officer for a further statement, 
Avhich is transmitted herewith, covering the additional AA^ork that 
may be necessary to enable barges draAving 17 feet to cross the bar 
at the mouth of the riA^er during all conditions of weather, the prob¬ 
able loss to water-power interests on account of the consumption of 
Ihe water at the Lawrence Lock, and the probability of boats of 
suitable draft for the proposed channel remaining in service in suffi¬ 
cient numbers to accommodate the large traffic that is expected. A 
depth of 23 and 25 feet on the bar will probably be necessary in 
stormA^ Aveather for barges draAving 17 feet. It is impracticable to 
state in advance hoAv much dredging Avill be required annually to 
remove the littoral drift that Avill tend to shoal this channel, but it 
is believed that the expense of this work Avill not exceed the district 
officer’s estimate of $80,000. The consumption of AA^ater in lockage 
apparently will not haA^e an important bearing on the proposition, 
as the maximum loss to the power interests from this cause in the 
<lriest year is estimated not to exceed $3,000. While it appears from 
the responses made to inquiries of shipping concerns that there is a 
marked tendency to increase the size and draft of seagoing vessels, 
there seems to be reasonable assurance that there will continue to 
be a sufficient demand for barges not exceeding 17 feet in draft to 
keep a large number of such boats in service. 

8. After due consideration of the available data, I concur with the 
district officer, the division engineer, and the Board of Engineers 
for Rivers and Harbors in the opinion that it is not advisable at the 
present time for the United States to undertake the improA^ement of 
Merrimack River from LoAvell, Mass., to Manchester, N. H. I concur 
Avith the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors in the opinion 
that the improvement by the United States of Merrimack River, 
Mass., with a vieAA^ to securing increased depth from Lowell to the 
sea, or in any part of this section of the river, is adAusable to the 
extent of providing a channel 18 feet deep at mean Ioav water and 
200 feet Avide from Black Rocks Beacon to Hunts Falls, at an esti¬ 
mated cost of $7,076,600, the State of Massachusetts or other local 
interests to contribute 50 per cent of the first cost of the improve¬ 
ment and to undertake further cooperation, as recommended by the 
board and specified above, and further to the extent of providing a 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


5 


channel 1,000 feet wide and not less than 23 feet deep across the bar 
at the mouth of the river at the expense of the United States and at 
a cost estimated not to exceed $80,000 a year. The first appropria¬ 
tion by the United States should be $1,000,000 and subsequent appro¬ 
priations made so as to complete the work in four years, and funds 
to be furnished by the State or local interests should be made 
available at the same rate. 

W. M. Black, 

Chief of Engineers^ United States Army. 


REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARP,ORS, 

LOAVELB TO THE SEA. 


[Sixth indorsement.] 


Board of Engineers for Eivers and Harbors, 

June 1910. 

The Chief of Engineers, United States Army: 

1. The following is in review of the district officer’s reports author¬ 
ized by the river and harbor act of July 25, 1912, on preliminary 
examination and survey of Merrimack Biver, Mass., with a view to 
securing increased depth from Lowell to the sea, or any part of this 
section of the river: 

2. The Merrimack River, formed by the confluence of the Pemi- 
gewasset and Winnepesaiikee Rivers at Franklin, N. H., enters the 
State of Massachusetts a short distance above Lowell and empties 
into the Atlantic Ocean about 2J miles below Newburyport, Mass. 
It is navigable for commercial uses up to Haverhill, about 19 miles 
above the mouth. Above Haverhill the slope is steep and the river is 
used for water p,ower, the first dam being at Lawrence and the second 
at Low^ell. 

3. There are two projects now in effect, {a) Newburyport Har¬ 
bor, Mass., adopted by the act of June 14, 1880, and extended by the 
act of June 25, 1910, provides for a channel over the outer bar 1,000 
feet wide and at least IT feet deep at mean low water, to be secured 
by converging jetties supplemented by dredging, if found advisable, 
at an estimated cost of $599,547.49. The mean tidal range is 7.6 
feet to 7.9 feet. The total amount expended to June 30, 1915, was 
$474,248.74. The project is reported as about 97 per cent completed. 
{h) Merrimack River, Mass., adopted by the act of March 3, 1899, 
provides for a channel 7 feet deep at mean low water, 150 feet wide 
from Newburyport to the railroad bridge at Haverhill, 16| miles, at 
an estimated cost of $171,442.70. The mean tidal range is 7.9 feet 
at the mouth and 4.6 feet at Haverhill. The project has been com¬ 
pleted. The amount expended to June 30, 1915, was $115,424.77 
for new work and $34,377.31 for maintenance, a total of $149,802.08. 

4. Investigations in connection with the preliminary examination 
indicated that the United States would not be justified in under¬ 
taking the improvement of the entire reach from Lowell to the sea, 
but that it might be advisable to give greater depth up to Ward Hill, 
about 2 miles above Haverhill, if the Commonwealth of Massachu¬ 
setts would make a similar improvement between Ward Hill and 



6 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


Lowell. The survey by the United States to Ward Hill was there¬ 
fore conditioned upon the State making a survey and project from 
Ward Hill to Lowell. This condition was met and a plan prepared 
by the Merrimack Valley Waterway Board. This plan proposes a 
lock at Ward Hill at the upper end of the proposed United States 
channel, another lock at the existing Lawrence Dam, a dam at 
Mitchells Falls, and dredging a channel 18 feet deep and 200 feet wide 
from Ward Hill to Hunts Falls, about 2 miles below the Pawtucket 
Dam at Lowell. The estimated cost of this project is $5,443,600. 
An act of the State legislature approved June 20, 1914, and subse¬ 
quently reenacted appropriates $1,000,000 for the improvement of 
the river from the sea to Hunts Falls at Lowell, provided the United 
States adopt a project and make an appropriation to improve that 
part of the river from the sea to Ward Hill. 

5. The survey and estimates b}^ the United States were based upon 
securing a channel 200 feet wide and 18 feet deep at mean low water 
from the sea to Ward Hill, except across the bar at the mouth, where 
there is now a depth of only 13 feet, but the conditions here are im¬ 
proving since the recent extension of the north jetty, and the district 
officer considers nothing further needed than work already authorized 
under the 17-foot project. The estimated cost of a tidal channel 21 
miles long from Black Rocks beacon inside the bar to Ward Flill is 
$8,500,000. In view of this large cost estimates were pre])ared for a 
project involving a tidal channel up to Lions Mouth, 3J miles above 
Newbur 3 qoort, with a lock and dam at that iplace forming a pool prac.- 
tically to the dam at Lawrence. This would raise the water surface 
12.71 feet, which would make it possible to dispense with the lock at 
IVard Hill and dam at Mitchells Falls proposed by the State board 
at a cost of $1,117,000. The estimate for carrying 18 feet to Ward 
Hill on this basis is $2,750,000. The district officer states that the use 
of a dam at Lions Mouth is objectionable on account of the probable 
bad effect on the maintenance of the channel over the bar, as it would 
cut off about two-thirds of the tidal flow of the river. Another objec¬ 
tion is the ponding of sewage in the pool formed by the dam. Under 
this plan the estimate for the improvement up to Hunts Falls be¬ 
comes : 


Channel to Ward Hill with lock and dam at Lions IMontli_$2, 750, 000 

Channel from AVard Hill to Hunts Falls, Lowell_ 4, 326, 600 

Total_ 7, 076, 600 


This estimate does not include terminals, changes in bridges and 
power plants, and flowage rights. The district officer places the 
grand total at about $10,000,000. 

6. Statistics furnished by the Merrimack Valley IVaterway Board 
show the population of the Merrimack River cities to be 307,540, in¬ 
vested capital $188,152,336, annual wages paid $42,004,459, value of 
product $196,595,077, consumption of coal 1,200,000 tons, of which 
about 135,000 tons are now received by water. It is given as the 
opinion of the manufacturers along the river that an adequate water 
route Avould effect a saving in freight rates of from 50 cents to $1 
a ton. The district officer states that the statistics of his office show 
a total of about 100,000 tons of freight received and shipped at 
Haverhill, the head of existing navigation; that it is problematical 






MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AKD N. H. 


7 


how much would be carried by water if facilities were provided; and 
that Avhile many would undoubtedly derive great benefit, the actual 
water-borne commerce would be disappointing in not showing a prof¬ 
itable investment. In view of the large cost and uncertain results, 
the district officer is of opinion that it is not advisable for the United 
States to undertake the improvement. The division engineer believes 
the improvement might be justified under certain conditions of State 
cooperation. 

7. Interested parties were informed of the unfavorable views of 
the district officer, and at their request a hearing was given at this 
office on May 23, 1916, which was attended by Hon. J. J. Kogers, 
M. C.; Hon. M. F. Phelan, M. C.; and a delegation from the localities. 

8. The section of countrj^ adjacent to the head of the proposed 
improvement, including the cities of Haverhill, Lawrence, and 
Lowell, is densely populated and is a manufacturing center of great 
importance. Large quantities of raw materials are brought in and 
converted into finished products of great value in the aggregate. 
The principal item of commerce in bulk is coal, of which it is esti¬ 
mated about 1,200,000 tons are used annually, and it is largely on the 
anticipated saving in the freight rate on this commodity that local 
interests look for justification for the desired improvement, although 
there are many other items of commerce, including cotton, hides, 
wool, iron, lumber, and the finished products of the mills, that would 
be benefited, but to a less degree. 

9. That the improvement would be of advantage to a large com¬ 
munity and would result in material benefits seems beyond doubt. 
The amount of this benefit expressed in terms of dollars and cents 
is impossible of definite determination. The information available 
indicates that the annual saving on coal alone would be between 23 
cents a ton, or $230,000, as estimated by the one opponent of the 
improA^ement, and 50 cents to $1 per ton, or $500,000 to $1,000,000, 
as estimated by proponents. In addition to the receipt of coal, which 
would probably be handled in cargo lots direct from middle Atlantic 
ports, there should develop a large traffic in other articles between 
Boston and the Merrimack cities. It seems reasonable to believe that 
a regular boat line would be put on between these points and it 
should do a large business. 

10. An important factor entering into this consideration in addi¬ 
tion to the question of saving in freight rates is the known rail 
congestion and car shortage that are experienced from time to time. 
An additional transportation route not subject to these disturbances 
would be of great advantage to the community. 

11. The improvement from Black Rock Beacon to Hunts Falls is 
estimated to cost $7,076,600, with probably $100,000 annually for 
maintenance. This is in addition to the cost of providing terminals, 
flowage rights, bridge alterations, etc. Of this sum the State pro¬ 
poses to contribute $1,000,000, leaving approximately $6,000,000 to 
be paid by the United States. In the opinion of the board the result¬ 
ing benefits to the general public would not warrant this Federal 
expenditure. It believes, however, that the interests to be affected 
are of sufficient magnitude to justify the United States in entering 
upon this project on a more equitable basis of cooperation. If the 
improvement is undertaken at all, it should be carried to Hunts Falls 


8 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


and executed as one project by the United States, and in the opinion 
of the board the basis of cooperation for actual construction, at an 
estimated cost of $T,0T6,G00, should be 50 per cent by the State or 
other local interests and 50 per cent by the United States, the local 
interests also assuming all other items of expense not included in this 
estimate. The board therefore recommends that the United States 
undertake the improvement of the Merrimack River from Black 
Rock Beacon to Hunts Falls, at an estimated cost of $7,076,600, sub¬ 
stantially in accordance with the plans proposed by the district 
officer and the Merrimack Valley Waterway Board, subject to such 
modifications in the details of the plans as may be found advisable 
by the Chief of Engineers during the progress of the work, the 
United States to pay one-half of this first cost and assume subse¬ 
quent maintenance, care, and operation, the State or other local in¬ 
terests to pay one-half of the first cost and assume all responsibility 
for cost of rights of way, flowage claims, bridge alterations, and 
damages to existing water power or other interests, provided that the 
work be not commenced until assurance satisfactory to the Secretary 
of War has been given that the State or local interests are prepared 
to cooperate on this basis. The first appropriation by the United 
States should be $1,000,000, and subsequent appropriations made so 
as to complete the work in four years. Funds to be furnished by the 
State or local interests should be at the same rate. 

12. In compliance with law, the board reports that, except as con¬ 
templated by the above recommendations, there are no questions of 
terminal facilities, water power, or other subjects so related to the 
project proposed that they may be coordinated therewith to lessen 
the cost and compensate the Government for expenditures made in 
the interests of navigation. 

For the board. 

Frederic Y. Abbot, 

Colonel^ Corps of Engineers^ 
Senior Member of the Board. 


REPORT OF THE HOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS, 

LOWELL TO IMANCHESTER. 

[Third indorsement.] 


Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, 

May 23, 1916. 

The Chief of Engineers, United States Army: 

1. The following is in review of the district officer’s report author¬ 
ized by the river and harbor act of March 4, 1915, on preliminary 
examination of Merrimack River, from Lowell, Mass., to Manches¬ 
ter, N. FI. 

2. A report, published in this same document and submitted under 
the river and harbor act of July 25, 1912, on the Merrimack River 
from its mouth to Lowell, considers a channel to be obtained by 
dredging and by locks and dams, 18 feet deep and about 38 miles 
long, terminating at its upper end at Hunts Falls, about 2 miles 
below Lowell. The present investigation contemplates an extension 
of this 18-foot channel from Hunts Falls to Manchester, a distance 



MEEEIMACK EIVEE, MASS. AND N. H. 


9 


of about 35 miles. The improvement would reach two cities of im- 
portance—Nashua, N. H., population about 26,000, and Manchester, 
N. H., population about 70,000. 

3. This section of the river is at present navigable only for small 
boats in the pool of the Pawtucket Dam at Lowell. A small canal 
around the dam through the city of Lowell affords a passageway for 
small boats, but it is rarety, if ever, used at present. Several plans 
for carrying the desired 18-foot channel from Hunts Falls into the 
Pawtucket Dam^ pool are described by the district officer, any one 
of which would involve extensive rock excavation in connection with 
lock and canal construction. From the head of the Lowell pool to 
Manchester the channel is rocky and obstructed by shoals and rapids. 
To overcome the rise of about 31 feet on this section two locks and 
dams would be required. It appears possible to create some water 
power in connection with one or both of these dams, but the value 
of such power would be small compared with the cost of the im¬ 
provement. 

4. There is, of course, under existing conditions no water-borne 
commerce, and the amount that would use the waterway if made 
navigable is purely conjectural. The water traffic would apparently 
consist almost entirely of materials received, of which coal would 
constitute the larger part. The district officer describes the present 
routing of this commodity and current rates, from which it appears 
that no great saving would result from the improvement. The dis¬ 
trict officer expresses the opinion that under present conditions the 
Merrimack Piver from Lowell to Manchester is not worthy of im¬ 
provement by the LTnited States. The division engineer concurs in 
this view. 

5. Interested parties were informed of the unfavorable report of 
the district officer and given an opportunity of presenting their views, 
and on May 23, 1916, a hearing was given at the office of the board on 
this subject in connection with a report on the Merrimack River from 
Lowell to the sea, submitted under authority of the river and harbor 
act of July 25, 1912. 

6. It is evident, from the information now before the board, that 
the improvement desired on this section of the Merrimack River 
would be very expensive. In addition to much rock excavation and 
the construction of several locks, it would require the reconstruction 
of a number of bridges and woidd probably interfere with existing 
w\ater power. MoreoA^er, there is no apparent urgent need for the 
improvement. The principal commerce to be affected would ap¬ 
parently consist of coal and building materials. The local delivery 
of these commodities is now organized on the basis of rail transpor¬ 
tation and a change to the water route would involve considerable 
terminal and rehandling charges. It does not appear that the saving 
in freight rates would be at all commensurate with the cost of the 
impiwement. In Anew of these conditions, the board concurs with 
the district officer and the cliAUsion engineer and reports that in its 
opinion it is not advisable for the United States to undertake the 
improA^ement of the Merrimack River from Lowell, Mass., to Man¬ 
chester, N. H., either as an independent improvement or in connec¬ 
tion with that of the lower river. 

7. In compliance with law, the board reports that there are no 
questions of terminal facilities, Avater power, or other related sub- 


10 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


jects vilich could be coordinated with the suggested improvement in 
such manner as to render the work advisable in the interests of com¬ 
merce and navigation. 

For the board. 

Frederic V. Abbot, 

Colonel^ Gorfs of Engineers^ Senior Member of the Board. 


PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OP INIERRIMACK RIVER, LOWELL TO 

THE SEA. 

War Department, 

United States Engineer Office, 

Boston., Mass.., March 29, 1913. 

From: The District Engineer Officer. 

To: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army 
(Through the Division Engineer). 

Subject: Preliminary examination of Merrimack Fiver, Mass. 

1. In compliance with instructions contained in a letter, dated 
August 3, 1912, and with provisions of the river and harbor act ap¬ 
proved July 25, 1912, the following report is submitted on the pre¬ 
liminary examination of Merrimack River, Mass., wdth a view to 
securing increased depth from Lowell to the sea or in any part of 
this section of the river. 

2. orh already done. —On October 31, 1807, Mr. Henry Mitchell, 
assistant United States Coast Survey, submitted a report in which 
he described a survey, made under his direction by Mr. H. L. Marin- 
din, covering Mitchells Upper and Lower Falls and Hazeltine 
Rapids. He placed the upper limit of tidal oscillation in the lower 
part of the upper falls; he stated that the river “ can be made navi¬ 
gable for barges drawing 4 feet Avithout locks or other expensive 
structures. After the requisite depths are obtained by excaA\ations, 
the single difficulty is the strong currents at the rapids.” He found 
velocities of 6.6 miles per hour “ in the loAver center ” of the lower 
falls at low water and only 2.5 miles per hour at high; at the upper 
falls 4 miles per hour at low water and 5.5 miles per hour at high 
were found near the foot of the falls. (H. Ex. Doc. No. 25, 41st 
Cong., 2d sess.) On August 16, 1869, Gen. J. G. Foster submitted 
an estimate amounting to $74,887.50 for removing the obstructions 
at the upper and lower falls. Gangway Rock at Newbury port, Avreck 
of a coal vessel near the mouth of the riA^er, some rocks locally knoAvn 
as “ The Boilers ” near the city AvharA^es, and for contingencies. In 
1870, 1871, and 1872 appropriations aggregating $75,000 Avere made 
by Congress, and GangAvay Rock Avas removed to give a mean Ioav 
water depth of 9J feet, the wreck was removed, and Avork Avas begun 
and about half completed at the lower falls. 

In August and September, 1872, the river Avas surveyed by Lieut. 
James B. Quinn, Corps of Engineers, acting under the orders of 
Lieut. Col. George Thom, Corps of Engineers, aaJio reported that the 
river could be improA^ed “ to permit ATSsels of 20-foot draft to ascend 
to Amesbury Ferry and vessels of 11-foot draft thence up to HaA’er- 
hill” for $19,000; also that “nearly 200 vessels, A^arying from 75 to 
400 tons each, passed up the Merrimack for Salisbuiy, Amesbury, 



MEREIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


11 


and Haverhill.” (Annual 
p. 77.) 

In the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1877, page 3G, 
it is reported that— 

All the work projected for improvin.si- the fnlls of this river above Haverhill, 
INIass., has been completed to the extent now deemed necessary. Newbnryport 
Harbor, at the mouth of the river, has also been improved by the removal of 
South Gang'eway Rock and of a vTecked schooner, and some progress has been 
made in the removal of North Gangway Rock. 

Between Newbnryport and Haverhill the river has been improved by deepen¬ 
ing the shoals and the removal of numerous bowlders which obstructed the 
channel * * * This work has all been completed except the removal of 

numerous sunken bowlders from the channel near Silsbvs Island, for which the 
funds now available are sufficient. 

For completing all the work now projected for the improvement of Newbury- 
port Harbor the additional sum of $25,000 will be required. 

At that time appropriations aggregating $122,000 had been made 
by Congress for Merrimack River and Newburvport Harbor jointly 
in the river and harbor acts of 1870. 1871, 1872,*1873, 1874, and 187^ 

In the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1882 it is 
stated: 

Previous to July 1. 18S1, the work done foi’ the improvement of this river 
consisted in opening the channel above Haverhill and through “ The Palls ” to 
the projected width and depth in places where absolutely necessary to make its 
navigation practicable; also in dredging at Haverhill between the'bridges and 
at Silsbys island Shoals, as well as at Curriers Shoal (about 4 miles below 
Haverhill), and at Rocks Bridge (6f miles below Haverhill), including the 
removal of a large number of dangerous sunken rocks at and near Rocks Bridge 
and the head of Silsbys Island; also in Newbnryport Harbor in the removal of 
Gangway Rock and partial removal of North Rocks and in the removal from 
the channel of several sunken wrecks and piers. 

Appropriations, including the river and harbor acts from 1870 to 
1882, inclusive, aggregate $167,000. This annual report contains 
also the preliminary examination of Merrimack River by Col. George 
Thom, Corps of Engineers, from Lawrence to Manchester, N. H., 
called for by the river and harbor act of March 3, 1881. The esti¬ 
mate (p. 54i) was as follows: 


Mitchells Falls to lower lock at Lawrence, 4^-foot depth_.$11,000 

Lawrence Dam to Pawtucket Dam at Lowell, 4-foot depth_ 225, 000 

Pawtucket Dam to Nashua, N. H., removing bowlders_ 8. 000 

Nashua, N, H., to Manchester, N. H., 3-foot depth_ 304, 000 


Total_.548,000 


This project was not adopted by Congress. 

In the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1885 it is 
stated that— 

The channel from the mouth to the head of the Upper Falls has been com¬ 
pleted in accordance with the adopted project. The excess of expenditure over 
the original estimate in the execution of this work is $15,670.09. This excess is 
explained by the fact that about $16,000 have been expended in the removal of 
rocks and other obstructions whose existence was unknown or whose removal 
was not contemplated when the original estimate was made. 

Additional work was recommended in this report, $11,500 from the 
mouth to the head of the falls and $11,000 from that point to the 
city of Lawrence, about 29 miles from the mouth. 


Report of Chief of Engineers for 1873, 







12 


MEREIMACK EIVEE^ MASS. AND N. H. 


In the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1888 it is 
reported: 

The improved channel is in good order and meets all existing demands of 
commerce. No appropriation is recommended for the fiscal year ending June 
30, 1890. 


The appropriations from 1870 to June 30, 1888, inclusive, aggre¬ 
gate $170,500. 

In the Annual Keport of the Chief of Engineers for 1894 it is 
stated that— 


At the date of this report the project for the improvement of the river is com¬ 
pleted and the improved channel is in good order. * * * 

No increase of the tonnage of the river is apparent since the improvement 
was commenced, and no new lines of water transportation have been estab¬ 
lished. 


Appropriations, including the river and harbor act of July 13, 
1892, aggregate $242,366.72, including $60,366.72 carried by the acts 
of 1828, 1830, 1831, 1833, and 1834, taken up in the Annual Report 
of the Chief of Engineers for 1892. 

The river and harbor act of August 17, 1894, directed the Secretary 
of War “to make a resurvey of said river with a view of obtaining 
a depth up to Haverhill equal to that over the bar at Newburyport.” 

Under date of January 15, 1896, Lieut. Col. S. M. Mansfield, Corps 
of Engineers, submitted the report called for by the above legisla¬ 
tion. The estimate covered a channel 200 feet wide from the sea to 
Newburyport and 150 feet wide thence to Haverhill; the depth was 
12 feet at mean low water, the estimated cost was $1,496,851.07, and 
the length of the channel was about 20 miles, of which 9^ only re¬ 
quired improvement. (Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers, 
1896, pp. 617-618.) 

The river and harbor act of June 3, 1896, ordered an estimate “of 
the cost of improving the Merrimack River, Mass., by dredging the 
channel thereof between Newburyport and Haverhill of the width of 
150 feet and of the depth of 7 feet at mean low water.” The report 
dated May 5, 1897, on this survey is printed on page 865, Annual 
Report of the Chief of Engineers for 1897; the estimated cost of the 
improvement was $171,442.70. The river and harbor act of March 3, 
1899, adopted this new project and provided $40,000 for initiation of 
work thereunder. In the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers 
for 1903 it is stated that 52,000 tons of coal used the river route in 
1899, 60,000 tons in 1900, 60,000 in 1901, and 29,901 in 1902. 

The river and harbor act approved June 13, 1902, authorized a 
preliminary examination wdth a view to obtaining a depth of 9 feet 
to Haverhill. The report on this examination by Lieut. Col. W. S. 
Stanton, Corps of Engineers, is printed in the Annual Report of 
the Chief of Engineers for 1904, page 873, and was adverse, on the 
ground— 

\ 

that the small barges, carrying 500 to 600 tons, with a draft of 10 to 11 feet, 
are going out of use, and that larger barges, carrying 1,500 or 1,600 to 2,000 
tons, with the draft of 15 or 16 to 18 feet, are supplanting them. * * * 

So by the time the improvement to the depth of 9 feet would be completed 
there seems to be little probability that it would enable coastwise coal-carrying 
vessels to ascend to Haverhill or that it would materially cheapen the cost 
of the water carriage of coal to that city. 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


13 


By June 30, 1905, the T-foot channel was completed up to the 
highway bridge at Haverhill. The commerce in 1904, 76,527 tons, 
was reported to have increased 25 per cent over the prior three years; 
in 1905 it was 88,324 tons; on page 43, Annual Keport of the Chief 
of Engineers for 1906, it is reported that the delivery of coal by 
water to river points ran 35 to 50 cents less per ton than by rail. 

The river and harbor act of March 3, 1905, contained an item 
ordering “ an examination to be made with a view to providing a 
channeh 12 feet deep between the mouth of the river and the falls 
above the city of Haverhill, also including in such examination rocks 
and other obstructions at the mouth of said river.” The report of 
Col. W. S. Stanton, Corps of Engineers, was adverse to the 12-foot 
channel on the ground that— 

“ providing a channel 12 feet deep between the month of the river and the falls 
above the city of Haverhill ” would not enable coal to be carried through it In 
ocean-going barges, would not, in my opinion, be of benefit commensurate with 
its cost, and is not worthy to be made by the United States. 

Dredging and the removal of certain ledges were recommended 
in the report on the survey, the estimated cost being $62,000. {See 
H. Doc. No. 339, 59th Cong., 2d sess.) This project was never 
adopted by Congress. 

The river and harbor act of March 2, 1907, called for a preliminary 
examination and survey of Merrimack Eiver, Mass., ‘‘ with a view to 
providing by locks and dams a channel 14 feet deep from the mouth 
of the river to the railroad bridge at Haverhill.” The favorable 
report of Lieut. Col. Edward Burr, Corps of Engineers, on this 
survey is contained in House Document No. 2, Sixty-first Congress, 
second session. The estimated cost was $890,000. The action of the 
War Department was unfavorable to the execution of the project, 
and it has not been adopted by Congress. 

In the Annual Eeport of the Chief of Engineers for 1909 it is 
stated: “The project” (of 1897, for 7 feet to Haverhill) “having 
been completed, it is proposed to apply the appropriation recom¬ 
mended to the maintenance of the improved channel.” Since that 
time all work has been maintenance. Appropriations to date aggre¬ 
gate $405,366.72; the balance unexpended on March 1. 1913, was 
$11,501.98. 

3. Navigable extent and maximum draft that can now he carried 
at mean low loater .—The mouth of the Merrimack is 54 miles north 
of Boston. The bar has been improved by two jetties, about 12 feet 
being now available at mean low water; in smooth weather this 
affords safe entrance at high tide to coal barges drawing in the 
vicinity of 17 feet. Three and a half miles above the bar is New- 
buryport, a city of about 15,000 inhabitants. Between the bar and 
Newburyport, for depths exceeding 9J feet at mean low water, the 
channel is obstructed by rocks and by a middle-ground shoal with a 
limiting depth of 10 feet at that stage of tide. With these excep¬ 
tions, 12 feet can be carried safely at mean low tide in the natural 
channel to a point about half a mile above the mouth of Powow 
Eiver and about 8 miles from the ocean bar. A channel at least 150 
feet wide and 7 feet deep at mean low water has been dredged from 
the upper end of the 12-foot natural channel to the railroad bridge 
at Haverhill, a distance of approximately 12 miles, that bridge being 


14 


MEERIMACK ElVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


about 16^ miles from Newburyport. Above the railroad bridge the 
natural channel has a depth of something like 8 feet and a width 
varying between 50 feet and 250 feet for about 1 mile, and for the 
next 1,500 feet, to the foot of Hazeltine Rapids, a depth of perhaps 
3 feet to 0 feet (see H. Doc. No. 339, 59th Cong.,’ 2d sess., p. 3)^ 
obstructed by bowlders. When making the present preliminary ex¬ 
amination it was hard to find anyone willing to risk taking a naphtha 
boat drawing a couple of feet to the foot of Hazeltine Rapids. There 
seemed to be no one who knew where the channel was or what ob¬ 
structions were likely to be met. From Hazeltine Rapids to Law¬ 
rence the river is now abandoned by navigation, and people along 
the banks believe that the 4-foot channel 60 feet wide formerly ex¬ 
cavated through the lower and upper falls has been filled with 
bowlders. Above the Lawrence Dam for about 7 miles up to Rich¬ 
ardsons Brook backwater gives gentle current and sufficient depth 
for naphtha boats drawing 2 or 3 feet; thence to Lowell there is no 
navigation, but an examination of the river was made from the 
banks. Great numbers of bowlders were visible. Between Lowell 
and the sea neither snags nor overhanging trees impede navigation. 

4. Rise and fall of water surface .—At any point below Mitchells 
Upper Falls the elevation of the water surface is dependent at any 
given time upon four factors—two natural and two purely artificial. 
They are the tidal stage at the mouth, the natural discharge in the 
river and its tributaries, the effect upon that discharge of the opera¬ 
tion of the mills at Lowell and Lawrence, and the withdrawal for 
sanitary uses of water from the Nashua and Sudbury Rivers, for¬ 
merly all tributary to the Merrimack. The withdrawal of water is 
controlled by the Metropolitan Water and Sewerage Board charged 
with the sanitary service of Boston and of the towns lying within 
the metropolitan water district. The amount withdrawn for sani¬ 
tary purposes does not vary greatly Avith the season of the year, 
but is a constantly increasing draft upon the discharge formerly 
available for navigation purposes. It varies with the population 
resident in the metropolitan district. In the nontidal part of the 
riA^er the effect of the mills is a maximum at the time of Ioav Avater, 
for then they use the pools above the dams for pondage. While the 
mills are shut doAvn they store water for use during the hours Avhen 
they are in operation, thus reducing to nothing the discharge im¬ 
mediately below the dams. In discussing this pondage Mr. C. W. 
Thom, of HaA^erhill, said at the hearing on October 4, 1912: 

I don’t Avaiit to say anything against Loweii and Lawrence. I suppose they 
are iooking after theinseiA^es and must protect theinseives. But I did not know 
there Avas any sucii iaw that aiiowed them to absoiuteiy stop the flow of this 
river. I suppose tiiey have so iittie Avater that they have to. But for the last 
tiiree or four years, I have been motoring up here for the iast feAV years, and 
I have seen the river absoiuteiy cut in tAVo at LoAveii and LaAvrence; not one 
drop. The floAv absoiuteiy stopped. Dams and canals are all right if they 
Avill let it go around and over and giA^e us a floAv doAvn there. That AAmuld be 
all right. But if it Avas not for the protection of the tide we Avould have noth¬ 
ing there. Every Aveek Ave Avould have absolutely nothing but mud flats, and 
we have not much more than that there now. It is something aA\Tul there, the 
stench of the mud. 

As the dams A\;ere built under State legislation before the United 
States assumed jurisdiction in such matters, the legal situation is 
one which is likely to give trouble if there be an attempt on the part. 


MEEEIMACK EIVEE^ MASS. AND N. H 


15 


of the United States to insist in the interests of navigation on the 
natural flow of the river. Judging from the current literature in 
connection with the Chicago Drainage Canal, there seems to be 
equal or greater question as to any United States regulation of the 
amount withdrawn from the river by the Metropolitan Water and 
Sewerage Board. 

Below Mitchells Upper Falls the river is essentially a tidal stream 
during the greater part of the year, with the characteristics, during 
that period, of such a stream. Taking mean low water at Black 
Bocks Beacon, close to the ocean, as the plane of reference, the fol¬ 
lowing tidal data are available: 


Location. 

Date of 
obser- 

Distance 

above 

Black 

Approximate slope 
from each point to next 
point below— 

Mean 

low 

Mean 

high 

water. 


vation. 

Rocks 

Beacon. 

At low 
water. 

At high 
water. 

water. 

Pacific Alills tailrace, Lawrence. 

1881 

Feet. 

150,000 

1 S 6 

No tide... 

Feet. 

16.04 

Feet. 

Q) 

0) 

0) 

8.72 

Lower locks, LawTence. 

146,000 

119,000 

97,000 

82,000 

61,000 

32,000 

13,000 

0 

2 6 3 

No tide... 

14.49 

Mitchells Falls (head). 

1881 

_7 5 2 

No tide_ 

11.66 

Haverhill Bridge. 

1905 

2^200*000 

3 6 

— 2 

4.14 

Groveland Bridge. 

1903 

1* 5 0 0 0 

92 

2 1 

27X75 t)77J2T? 

2 a 

3.78 

8.74 

B.nek<? Rridve . 

1903 

16 2 

7 4 

2. 86 

8.53 
8.28 

Powow River (mouth of). 

1903 

2 0 

T72?50;^2 

40 

1.24 

Newburvport. 

1895 

0 0*000 
50_ 

.50 

8.08 

Blank Rocks Beacon. 

1880 

1*300*000 

l*o00*000 

.00 

7.68 





1 Mean low water with mill water running. 


The regimen of the river is shown by the following table, showing 
the monthly mean stage at the Lawrence lower locks gauge for 63 
years, referred to a datum plane 9.01 feet above mean low water at 
Black Bocks Beacon; no Sunday readings recorded. 


Year. 


1850 

1851 

1852 

1853 

1854. 

1855. 

1856. 

1857. 

1858. 

1859. 

1860. 

1861. 

1862. 
1863 

1864. 

1865, 
1866 

1867, 

1868. 

1869. 

1870. 

1871. 

1872. 

1873. 

1874. 

1875. 

1876. 

1877. 

1878. 


Jan¬ 

uary. 

Feb¬ 

ruary. 

March. 

April. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

Au¬ 

gust. 

Sep¬ 

tem¬ 

ber. 

Octo¬ 

ber. 

No¬ 

vem¬ 

ber. 

De¬ 

cem¬ 

ber. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

7.70 

9.67 

9.24 

11.81 

15.26 

9.56 

7.56 

7.42 

8. 42 

6.85 

6.78 

7.89 

7.54 

11.35 

9.68 

12.19 

9.27 

7.02 

6.22 

5.64 

4.50 

5.17 

8.90 

7.24 

9.86 

9.11 

10.32 

15.07 

11.50 

6.50 

5.05 

4.96 

5.54 

5.58 

7.99 

8.64 

7.89 

10.93 

10.01 

11.12 

9.96 

6.80 

4.87 

6.20 

6.43 

7.76 

10.39 

7.04 

8.91 

8. 74 

10.97 

12.21 

13.76 

7.08 

5.46 

4.82 

5.11 

4.86 

8.40 

8.02 

10.07 

12.11 

7.92 

14.51 

9.24 

8.48 

6.99 

6.30 

5.13 

9.67 

8.48 

8.23 

8. 66 

8.02 

7. 77 

12.23 

9.67 

7.08 

5.21 

9.34 

7.45 

7.22 

6. 71 

8.04 

8.01 

12.73 

8.99 

13. 21 

12. 72 

8.62 

6.66 

7.90 

6.47 

7.68 

8.49 

8.60 

9.01 

7.26 

8.04 

8.72 

9.13 

7.73 

6.01 

6.35 

7.47 

7.50 

7.92 

6.65 

8.69 

9.15 

13.88 

12.46 

10.30 

8.42 

6.45 

5.67 

6.03 

6.13 

6.64 

7.88 

7.93 

8.22 

9. 82 

7.97 

6.22 

6.80 

6.16 

6. 78 

7.84 

7.42 

9.65 

8. 40 

8.90 

11.78 

12.58 

14.08 

11.33 

7.47 

5.95 

5.74 

5.14 

6.50 

7.98 

7.15 * 

7.60 

7.31 

9.41 

14.48 

10. 40 

7.32 

6.88 

6.16 

5.78 

5.69 

7.93 

7.33 

7. 76 

8.94 

8.71 

14.97 

10.05 

6.24 

7.58 

8.13 

7.01 

8.48 

10.30 

9.46 

10.52 

8.32 

11.51 

11.84 

10.18 

6. 27 

5.12 

5.21 

4.90 

5.90 

8.27 

8.08 

9.37 

8.14 

13.52 

11.59 

11.49 

6.98 

6.39 

5.58 

5.33 

5.66 

6.81 

6.22 

6.37 

10.49 

8.64 

10.29 

7.65 

8.54 

6.29 

6.68 

7.04 

6.56 

8. 77 

8.60 

8.19 

11.07 

7.96 

13.30 

11.12 

8.47 

6.65 

9.31 

6, 76 

6.59 

7.38 

7.52 

7.63 

7.61 

10.77 

10.61 

12.63 

9. 78 

5. 83 

6.03 

9.16 

7.74 

10.01 

7.96 

8.75 

8.53 

9. 46 

16.09 

11.23 

7.65 

6.73 

5.93 

6.02 

12.26 

8.40 

9.31 

12.36 

10.50 

9.48 

18.28 

9.91 

6.82 

5.98 

5.72 

5.51 

5.59 

5.66 

6.09 

6.51 

7.41 

10. 02 

8.90 

9.50 

6.46 

5. 63 

5.61 

5.63 

6.26 

8.00 

7.64 

7.49 

6. 65 

6.58 

12.02 

8. 69 

9.07 

6. 66 

8.43 

8.79 

8.67 

9.92 

8.07 

10.04 

9.19 

8.46 

15.13 

11.22 

6.34 

5.64 

5. 62 

5.96 

8.99 

7.57 

8.37 

10. 65 

10.11 

9. 22 

9.51 

12.26 

9. 44 

9.28 

6.92 

5. 78 

5.76 

5.37 

6.06 

6. 49 

7.32 

9. 39 

12.94 

9. 94 

6. 98 

5. 61 

6.13 

5. 49 

6.10 

8.53 

7.17 

7.51 

7. 99 

11.85 

14. 09 

11.61 

7.53 

5.56 

5. 44 

5. 44 

5.37 

6.21 

6.02 

6. 90 

6. 79 

11.03 

11.67 

8.27 

6.19 

6.37 

6.83 

5.63 

7.25 

9.86 

8. 71 

8.57 

9.25 

11. 70 

11.26 

10.22 

7.21 

5.61 

6. 76 

5.64 

5. 74 

7.72 

12.54 



























































































16 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


Year. 

Jan¬ 

uary. 

Feb¬ 

ruary. 

March. 

April. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

Au¬ 

gust. 

Sep¬ 

tem¬ 

ber. 

Octo¬ 

ber. 

No¬ 

vem¬ 

ber. 

De¬ 

cem¬ 

ber. 


Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

Feet. 

1879. 

8.54 

9.84 

9.27 

12.83 

10.73 

7.89 

6.41 

6.54 

6.30 

6.54 

6. 71 

8.16 

1880. 

8.31 

9.87 

9.37 

9.44 

7.24 

6.09 

5.90 

5.67 

5.43 

5.23 

6.76 

6.11 

1881. 

6.94 

8.64 

11.99 

11.04 

10.39 

7. 05 

6.17 

5.79 

5.52 

5.55 

7.26 

8.40 

1882. 

8.92 

10.23 

11.36 

9.47 

9.52 

9.07 

5. 76 

5.29 

6.30 

5.85 

5.31 

5.68 

1883. 

6.21 

7.06 

7.35 

11.40 

8.85 

7.20 

6.08 

5.33 

4.65 

5.15 

5.67 

5.84 

1884. 

7.99 

9.78 

11.30 

14.34 

9.92 

6.43 

5.33 

5.18 

5.33 

4.94 

5.38 

6.99 

1885. 

9.06 

8. 72 

7.60 

11.95 

8.63 

6.50 

5.62 

7.10 

5.77 

5.81 

8.93 

7.93 

1886. 

10.83 

12.40 

9.97 

13.23 

8.07 

5.95 

5.29 

5.27 

5.25 

5.24 

7. 72 

7.63 

1887. 

10.55 

10.83 

8.94 

14.21 

10.62 

8.39 

7.90 

8. 78 

6.73 

6.14 

6.77 

7.90 

1888. 

9.23 

10.15 

10.47 

14.76 

13.55 

7.50 

5.54 

5.65 

7.80 

10.57 

10.93 

11.50 

1889. 

10.41 

7.96 

10.00 

9.92 

8.05 

7.45 

6.35 

7.14 

6.12 

7.65 

9.12 

10.76 

1890. 

8. 66 

9.18 

11.54 

12.31 

11.31 

8.35 

5.95 

6.07 

8. 64 

10.06 

9.02 

7.81 

1891. 

11.30 

10.91 

14.43 

13.74 

8.30 

6.83 

5.90 

5.55 

5.60 

5.33 

5.58 

6.47 

1892. 

9.53 

7.20 

8. 28 

8.54 

9.52 

7.59 

6.88 

6.52 

6.55 

5.52 

7.74 

6.58 

1893. 

7.10 

8.65 

10.10 

12.00 

13.08 

6.91 

5.41 

5.12 

5.34 

6.25 

6.19 

7.53 

1894. 

7.26 

7.63 

10.63 

9.59 

7.81 

7.35 

5.44 

4.76 

5.35 

5.50 

6.26 

6.13 

1895. 

6.61 

6.52 

7.76 

13.13 

7.72 

5.85 

5.71 

5.36 

5.29 

6.42 

9.35 

9.29 

1896. 

8.97 

9.05 

13.49 

12.61 

6.84 

6.31 

4.82 

5.00 

5.76 

7.15 

7.77 

7.23 

1897. 

6.67 

7.64 

9.66 

12.22 

9.43 

10.27 

9.69 

7.30 

5.62 

5.48 

7.96 

9.76 

1898. 

8.53 

9.68 

12.67 

11.72 

9.98 

8.36 

5.38 

6.36 

5.83 

7.86 

9.40 

9.22 

1899. 

9.14 

8.11 

10.53 

15.37 

9.24 

5.84 

5.82 

5.57 

5.41 

5.39 

5.74 

5.93 

1900. 

6.56 

11.68 

11.89 

13.01 

9. 72 

6.60 

5.28 

5.07 

5.05 

5.79 

7.47 

8.29 

1901. 

6.19 

6.16 

9.08 

15. .39 

12.01 

8.46 

5.85 

6.91 

5.98 

6.76 

6.02 

9.40 

1902. 

10.05 

7.90 

15.16 

12.28 

9.66 

7.53 

6. 69 

6.50 

6.36 

8.91 

7.88 

9.30 

1903. 

9.03 

9.68 

15.51 

11.31 

6.52 

9.39 

7.02 

5.97 

5.43 

6.49 

6.15 

6.45 

1904. 

6.73 

7.03 

10.15 

13.17 

11.85 

6.81 

5.78 

5.75 

5.92 

6.38 

5.91 

5.39 

1905. 

7.66 

6.45 

8.96 

11.39 

7.30 

6.64 

5.92 

5.92 

8.79 

6.13 

6.35 

7.71 

1906. 

8.61 

6.86 

8.40 

12.21 

9.85 

10.22 

7.39 

6.16 

5.58 

5.66 

6.23 

6.01 

1907. 

8.02 

6.98 

8.02 

10.87 

9.14 

7. 26 

6.24 

5.46 

6.32 

8.89 

11.16 

9.59 

1908. 

9. 24 

8.80 

10.55 

10.69 

10.30 

6.73 

5.65 

5.98 

5.23 

5.09 

5.10 

5.28 

1909. 

6.16 

8.16 

9.01 

12. 82 

9.48 

6.85 

5. 86 

5.45 

5.09 

5.52 

5.32 

5.80 

1910. 

7.10 

7.26 

12.11 

9.92 

8.00 

7.20 

5.12 

5.34 

5.21 

4.93 

5.31 

4.97 

1911. 

6.06 

5.66 

7.25 

10. 70 

7.42 

5.64 

4.70 

4.95 

5.27 

6.67 

7.27 

8.05 

1912. 

7.42 

6. 78 

9.90 

12. 82 

9.65 

7.18 

5.27 

5.79 

5.69 

6.08 

7.48 

7.26 

Mean, 63 j’^ears. 
Mean discharge 
in cubic feet 

8.35+ 

8.79+ 

10.15+ 

12. 27+ 

9.91+ 

7.43+ 

6.10+ 

6.16+ 

6.06+ 

6.61+ 

7.59+ 

7.70+ 

per second.... 

7,264 

8,273 

11,585 

17,602 

10,936 

5,260 

3,460 

3,520 

3,420 

4,054 

5,580 

5,820 


The above table shows that for many months each year the fresh 
water discharge in the nontidal part of the river is so small that an 
open channel of sufficient capacity for coastwise steamers and barges, 
desired by all who appeared at the hearing, would have an almost 
negligible slope and current. 

Freshet conditions are unusual except in the spring. The highest 
of record in the last 50 years occurred in March, 1896, the maximum 
stages reached, referred to( the plane of mean low water at Black 


Bocks Beacon, were as follows: 

Feet. 

Powow River at high tide_17. 68 

Powow River at low tide_:_B3. 00 

Merrimacport _20. 22 

Rocks Bridge_20. 86 

Grovel and Bridge_21. 73 

Haverhill Bridge_ 23. 93 

Lower lock, Lawrence.J[_38. 79 

Above dam, Lawrence (crest of dam is elevation 43.13)_52. 99 


Photographs (Appendix F)^ show that at the time of this freshet 
the dam at Lawrence was nearly drowned out, although its crest is at 
reference 43.13; low water at the lower locks is at reference 14.49, 


^ Or less. 


* Not printed. 



















































































MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


17 


both referred to mean low water at Black Rocks Beacon. Imme¬ 
diately below the dam the river gorge was so constricted by the erec¬ 
tion of factory buildings that it was insufficient for the discharge, 
and on both banks water rose over a foot deep in the operating rooms 
of the mills. In the following table taken from page 9 of Col. Burr’s 
report of November 3, 1908 (H. Doc. No. 2, 61st Cong., 1st sess.), 
data are given as to other floods which have occurred: 

Freshet Heights at Laiorenee referred to Black Rocks Datum. 



Pool 

above 

dam. 

At lower 
locks. 


Pool 

above 

dam. 

At lower 
locks. 

1852, Apr. 23. 

Feet. 

53.12 

Feet. 

37.92 

1873, Oct. 22. 

Feet. 

49.26 

Feet. 

27.49 

1864, Mar. 7. 

52.01 

1874' Jan. 10. 

49.91 

30.13 

1869, Oct. 6. 

51. 71 

33.26 

1875' Apr. 6. 

50.80 

30.71 

1870, Apr. 21. 

52.53 

36.60 

1888, May 1. 

50. 48 

28.50 

1871, Mar. 14. 

49. 21 

25. 89 

1888' Dec. 19. 

50.86 

26.39 

1872, Apr. 12. 

49. 49 

28. 49 

1895, Apr. 16. 

52.89 

36. 55 

1873, Apr. 12. 

49.11 

28.18 

1 1896' Mar. 3. 

52.99 

38.79 


i 


Remarks. —In some eases the height at lower locks was not taken at the same time as the greatest 
height above the dam, of which the crest is 43.13, but is the greatest height observed for the same day. 
In 1785 was a great freshet ranging between those of 1852 (53.12) and 1896 (52.99). 

The variations in freshet height at lower locks for nearly equal heights above the dam will be noted, 
ndi ating the effects of varying local conditions below the dam on freshet heights. 

At the Pawtucket dam in LoAvell the flood of April, 1852, necessi¬ 
tated the use of a guard gate across the upper lock. At that flood the 
river Avas 14 feet 1 inch aboA^e the top of the PaAvtucket dam, Avhich 
is the maximum reached at LoAA^ell in any flood so far recorded. Be- 
tAveen January, 1852, and January, 1879, there AA^ere seven freshets 
during AAdiich the height of AA^ater exceeded 10 feet above the top of 
this dam, according to a paper by Mr. James B. Francis. The dates 
and heights are stated as folloAA’s in that paper: 

April 22, 1852, 14 feet 1 inch above top of dam. 

March 20, 18.59, 10 feet 8 inches above top of dam. 

April 20, 1802, 10 feet 91 inches above top of dam. 

March 14, 1865, 10 feet 9 inches above top of dam. 

October 6, 1809, 10 feet 3| inches above top of dam. 

April 21, 1870, 13 feet If inches above top of dam. 

December 12, 1878, 10 feet 11 inches above top of dam. 

In a letter dated March 5, 1913, the chief engineer of the Locks & 
Canals Co. brings the record to date by adding the folloAving: 

April 10, 1895, 11 feet .5^ inches above top of dam. 

March 3, 1896, 12 feet 9| inches above top of dam. 

April 8, 1901, 10 feet 3 inches ahoA’e top of dam. 

5. Headroom and clear span of bridges .—The riA^er is crossed by 
the following bridges, beginning at the mouth, and listing them in 
the order they AAmuld be passed by a vessel proceeding upstream to 
Ward Hill, 1 mile above HaAwhill. 

H. Doc. 1813, 64-2-2 

































18 


MEEEIMACK EIVEK^ MASS. AND N. IT. 


Name of bridge. 

Distance 

above 

mouth. 

Clear 
height 
at mean 
low 
water. 

Range of 
tide or 
river 
stage at 
bridge. 

Clear 
opening 
in draw. 

Highway CNewlairvpnrl,') . 

Miles. 

3 

Feet. 

20.8 

Feet. 

7.58 

Feet. 

/North 76 
\South 71 
/North 69 
\South 64 

54.0 

Boston A Maine B. R,. (’Newburyport) . 

3 

20.8 

7. 58 

Deer Island Bridge: 

N orth Channel . 


2 15 

2 6.86 

South Channel ^. 


36. 26 

2 6. 86 

3 220.5 

Rocks Bridge. 

12 

23.0 

5.67 

/East 54.4 
iWest 54.0 
/North 64.1 
i South 64.4 
/North 38.0 
/South 38.0 
(^) 

Groveland. 

16 

19.5 

4.96 

Haverliill (highway). 

19 

23.4 

4.58 

Boston & Maine R. R. Bridge at Haverhill. 

19i 

19.) 

41.5 

4.52 

Highway bridge at Haverhill, known as Coiinty Bridge. 

35.2 

4.52 

(5) 




1 Erected in place of old Chain Bridge. ^ No draw. Spans are 135 feet wide. 

- Approximate. & No draw. Spans are 140 feet wide. 

3 Fixed span. 


Above Haverhill the suggested route leaves the river, and the canal 
would have to cross at grade the Salem and Lawrence branch and 
the main line of the Boston & Maine Railroad. It would also, near 
Ward Hill, pass under the main line of the Boston & Maine Rail¬ 
road, the bridge being about 50 feet above the water in the canal. 
The number of highway bridges to be crossed at grade by the canal 
is indeterminate, but there would be several in South Lawrence. 

6. Unusual difficulties of navigation .—The bar at the mouth pre¬ 
sents the first difficulty. The river carries a certain amount of sedi¬ 
ment for 10 miles toward the south, and for many miles toward the 
north the coast consists of sandy beaches forming a cordon littoral 
in front of low-lying marshes. The beach material is easily moved 
by waves and currents, and the unimproved Newburyport bar had 
the characteristics usual in such circumstances—shallow depth (6 
feet at mean low water), shifting channel, and heavy breakers except 
in calm weather, which in this locality is usual only from IMay to 
November; for the rest of the year and at irregular intervals sudden 
storms are frequent. Two jetties have obtained and maintained for 
some years a depth at mean low water across the bar, varying be¬ 
tween 11 and 13 feet; the channel, Avhile somewhat shifting, seems 
to wander between more narrow limits than formerly. The mean 
rise of tide on the bar being 7.68 feet, 17 feet is about the limit of 
safe draft to which vessels bound to Newburyport can be loaded. On 
the bar, between the jetties and at some other points, flood-tide cur¬ 
rents are very strong at the very time when vessels must enter to take 
full advantage of the greatest depth. Unless inward-bound vessels 
loaded to such depths reach the bar just before high tide they must 
anchor off the bar, where there is no shelter, and this makes naviga¬ 
tion hazardous except in calm weather. The channel to Newbury¬ 
port has about 2 feet less actual depth than that over the bar, but as 
there are no waves the available depth is not Avidely different. Sev¬ 
eral ledges lie near this channel, which is neither wide nor entirely 
straight. Near the city there is a large sand shoal, which is said 
to be somewhat shifting as to depth and position at times of freshets. 





























MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


19 


Barges drawing 17 feet are sometimes towed in over the bar by 
two tugs and brought up to the city by one tug on a single high water. 
At high tide Newburyport now marks the upper limit of 17 feet 
draft. Fourteen feet at high tide can be carried up to Amesbury 
Ferry, but ocean-going barges of so small draft are getting scarce. 
For other river points all freights, mostly coal, now break bulk at 
Newbury port, are rehandled once or twice, according to circum¬ 
stances, and are loaded on special river lighters of from 4 to 8 feet 
draft and from 35 to 240 tons burden, owned by the Merrimac Kiver 
Towing Co., which has a fleet of 16 of these lighters and 3 tugboats. 
The cost per ton is stated to be 10 cents for use of scows and 23 cents, 
for rehandling. (H. Doc. No. 339, 59th Cong., 2d sess., p. 4.) The 
present towage charge from Newburyport to Haverhill (16 miles by 
river) is stated to be about 25 cents per ton of coal. In this 16 miles 
the unusual difficulties of navigation are mainly due to curvature, 
comparative narrowness of the navigable part of the channel where 
it passes through areas of broad open water, the difficulty of keeping 
such reaches properly marked by buoys or beacons, due to floods, 
swift currents, and drifting ice, and the necessity of having the tug 
and tow start just before the crest of the flood tide is reached at 
Newburyport and “ carry that tide up the river ”; to do this the rate 
of progress of the vessels must be as nearly as possible the same as 
that of the crest of the tidal wave in order to keep the greatest avail¬ 
able depth of water under them as they ascend the stream. If under 
these conditions the tow accidentally grounds on rocky or uneven 
bottom the tide begins to fall almost immediately, and both the strain 
on the grounded vessel and the delay are a maximum, for the boat 
will not float again for nearly 13 hours and the tide will fall the full 
range at that place. 

In 1905 the ponding of water in the pools above the dams at 
Lavrrence, Lowell, and Nashua was the subject of complaint under 
section 10, river and harbor act of March 3, 1899. Investigation 
showed that while the mills were shut down on Saturday afternoons 
and Sundays the entire fresh-water flow of the river was stopped 
at times for over 24 hours. The power company claimed that due 
to its large reservoirs farther up the river and its careful utilization 
of all available water more water had actually flowed in the five 
dry months (June to October, inclusive) than had been the case for 
20’years before the act of March 3, 1899, became law. Observations 
at Haverhill on August 26 and 27. 1905, by a United States inspec¬ 
tor indicated that the tide was 15 inches lower on Sunday than on a 
Aveek day, probably due to ponding. As a final result of the com¬ 
plaint, no legal prosecution of the poAver company Avas made, in view 
of an opinion of the local United States attorney, dated July 7, 
1906, to the effect that there Avas doubt as to the applicability of the 
statute to dams constructed long before the passage of the act under 
Avhich complaint Avas made. By loAvering the height of the high 
Avater, ponding constitutes a real and unusual difficulty of naviga¬ 
tion. If the above opinion of the district attorney be correct, there 
maA^ be considerable doubt of the right of the United States Avith- 
out compensation to take Avater for lockage purposes from the pool 
created by the Lawrence dam. For long periods every cubic foot of 
Avater so diverted from the pool Avould be an absolute loss to the 


20 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


power companies; this is proved by the following quotation from 
page 9 of their protest^ against a bill introduced in 1907 in the 
Massachusetts general court to require them to construct a safeguard 
above the Lawrence dam: 

Except for a short time after heavy rains, there is generally no water run¬ 
ning over the clam. All that comes down the river is drawn into the canals 
and used in manufacturing. Sometimes for a month or six weeks continu¬ 
ously no water wastes over the dam, days, nights, or Sundays. 

Under the heading “Water power” this question will be further 
discussed. (See also Senate Doc. No. 274, 62d Cong., 2d sess.) 

Even at the “ top of the tide ” the currents in certain bends, and 
especially in certain draw openings, are extraordinarily swift. On 
the ebb they are not coincident in direction with the flow on the 
flood, and therefore fenders can not be so placed as to suit the 
direction of flow at both tides. Heavy ice renders it necessary to 
jirovide fender piers, or “ draw rests,” as they are locally called, 
of unusual weight and stability; they are rigid, unyielding structures 
against which it is unsafe for a barge to swing under the impulse of 
strong currents. Rocks Bridge is perhaps the worst place on the 
river on this account. There are also periods in the season of open 
river when freshets make currents so strong as to lay up river 
traffic for over a week at a time in the spring and for days at a time 
later in the open season. 

Between Haverhill and Lawrence there is no navigation at all, 
except for pleasure purposes, and the danger of submerged bowlders, 
swift currents, and the lack of any objective point which can be 
reached, except for picnic purposes, have rendered even this use 
very slight. About a mile and a half above the city, to the foot of 
Hazeltine Rapids, was as far as a naphtha boat could be hired to 
go at the time of inspection. For the upper half of that distance 
rocks and bowlders made great watchfulness necessary to avoid 
breaking the propeller or grounding outside of the unmarked chan¬ 
nel. At the time of summer low water the river from this point to 
the dam at Lawrence becomes a series of detached ponds whenever 
the natural flow is stopped by shutting down the mills. (See pho¬ 
tographs,^ Appendix F.) 

At low stages the channel in the 7-mile pool formed by the Law- 
1 ‘ence Dam has considerable depth and gentle current for the lower 
5 miles; for the next 2 miles it is obstructed by large bowlders; 
from that point to the lower lock in the Pawtucket Canal, in the 
city of Lowell, a distance of about a mile and a half, there is no 
practicable channel, the river being a succession of rapids called 
Hunts Falls, the fall jn that distance being about 12 feet. In the 
lower 5 miles of the Lawrence pool there is considerable pleasure 
boating, but no freight traffic, so far as could be learned. On four 
occasions in the last 65 years pleasure parties, containing nine people 
in all, have drifted over the dam, seven people being drowned. The 
average interval between the accidents has lieen about 14 years. In 
1907 an effort was made to enact a State law requiring the Essex Co. 
to construct and maintain a floating timber boom across the river 
above the dam “between the 1st day of April and the 1st day of 
November of each year.” It failed to become a law, but a boom is 


1 Not printed. 



MEREIMACK RIVEE, MASS. AND N. H. 21 

now placed across the river above the dam by private boating inter¬ 
ests at certain seasons of the year. 

7. In accordance with section 2, subparagraphs (a), (&), and (c) 
of the river and harbor act approved July 25, 1912, the following 
data have been secured: 

(a) Terminals .—Terminals for transferring water-borne freight 
and passengers to the shore exist at Newburyport, Amesbury Ferry, 
Amesbury, Merrimacport, Groveland, and Flaverhill. At Newbury¬ 
port the upper wharves without railroad connection are as follows: 
(1) Above the highway bridge, only abandoned structures; (2) be¬ 
low that bridge and on north bank, one oil wharf with pipes and 
pumps to unload ocean-going oil barges into tanks; and (3) one 
wharf for fishing nets, reels, etc.; on the south bank there are (4) a 
coal pocket and steam equipment for taking coal out of barges and 
storing it; (5) a similar plant; (6) boat railway; (7) pier of Merri- 
mac Fiver Towing Co., with power equipment for unloading barges 
and transfer of contents to smaller barges; (8) abandoned wharf; (9) 
wharf and closed warehouse for package freight, formerly used by a 
steamer no longer running between Newburyport and Haverhill. 
Good highways adequate to the local needs serve the above wharves. 
The lower wharves have railroad connections, and are as follows: 

(1) Large piers and warehouses of Philadelphia & Eeading Coal & 
Iron Co., with first-class equipment for handling and storing coal; 

(2) a coal wharf, steam hoist; (3) similar wharf Avith 2 covered coal 
pockets; (4) cold-storage plant Avith facilities for unloading fishing 
A^essels; (5) effectiA’e coal plant Avith three overhead trestles and 
large storage; (6) a bulkheaded lot occupied’by coal piles; (7) lum¬ 
ber wharf and yard; (8) yacht club pier and clubhouse; (9) beloAv 
this a double-track railroad runs close to the water’s edge for about 
1,000 feet, but the adjacent water is shoal. There is physical connec¬ 
tion betAveen all the lower wharves and the Boston & Maine Failroad, 
and at the Philadelphia & Feading Coal & Iron Co. Avharf there is 
opportunity to load cars by graAuty from pockets overhead, or by 
steam hoist direct from lighters lying at the wharf. The pockets 
seiwe four railroad tracks at once, if desired, each track having a 
train of several cars loading simultaneously. The other wharAes 
are Avithout such facilities for interchange of Avater-borne coal to 
cars, but it is simpl}^ a question of making the installation, as the 
tracks are available. 

So far as could be learned there is no contract for interchange of 
traffic by prorating as to such long-distance traffic as may be desired 
to be carried partly by rail and partly by Avater to its destination; in 
addition to the railroad tracks good higliAvays adequate to present 
and future needs serA^e all the loAver AvharA^es. There are no whaiwes 
in NeAvburyport Avhich are owned by the public and open to all on 
equal terms. The private AvharA^es*^ in good repair are almost ex¬ 
clusively used by their owners, in connection with their coal, oil, fish, 
or toAving business, and are in consequence not open to all on equal 
terms. The dilapidated structures appear to be open to anyone, but 
not by any specific authority. The AA^ater front of the toAAm below the 
bridges is fully occupied by existing structures; no considerable 
area of public space is available for public wharves. Above the 
bridge is a full mile of umiBlized Avater front, and land can be 


22 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


formed below the town by filling in the fiats; the construction of 
public wharves on some parts of these areas by the State or by the 
municipality would suffice to insure against monopoly. Before en¬ 
larging the present project for improving the river between New¬ 
bury port and the ocean, it would appear essential to insure coopera¬ 
tion by municipal or State authorities in connection with this termi¬ 
nal matter. At Amesbury Ferry there are two coal wharves with 
steam equipment, handling together 4,000 to 5,000 tons of coal per 
year, from barges drawing not OA^er 15 feet; at Amesbury, a short 
distance up the Poavoav Eiver, Avhich here enters the Merrimack from 
the north, is a coal yard and Avharf Avith steam appliances, handling 
per year about 15,000 tons of coal from barges of the class running 
betAveen NeAvburyport and Hav^erhill; at Merrimacport, on the north 
bank of the Merrimack Kiver a short distance above Amesbury 
Ferry, is a coal Avharf with steam equipment handling perhaps 4,000 
tons of coal a year from the river barges, and on the south bank, 2 
miles beloAv Bfaverhill, at GroA^eland, is a coal Avharf Avith steam 
equipment handling between 2,000 and 3,000 tons of coal per year. 
All of these are private wharves, without any rail connections, but 
Avith good higliAvays for access, and are not open to all Avater carriers 
on equal terms, except to the extent necessarily involved in the actual 
condition that all the barge traffic is now conducted on the river by 
a single toAving company, which supplies the barges themselves as 
well as the towboats that pull them. At Haverhill there is a very 
different condition of affairs. There are some 20 quay Avails locally 
IniOAvn as Avhaiwes. They are usually from 300 to 400 feet long and 
many of them have sufficient depth along their fronts to insure that 
barges draAving 10 feet shall remain Avater borne eA^en at low tide. In 
the public hearing held October 4,1912, it was stated that some of these 
Avharves are public landings, and have been so occupied since the 
city first secured a charter. Alderman Hood stated at the hearing: 

There are plenty of dockins: facilities in the city of HaA^erhill, and I have 
no doubt that the city of HaA^erhill AA^oiild cooperate Avith the United* States 
GoA^ernment and Avith the CommonAvealth of Massachusetts in bringing about 
any terminal facilities or such other things as may be necessary. 

The city noAV controls several sites Avith 300 feet or more riA-er 
frontage which could be made into thoroughly effectiAT public land¬ 
ing places, open to all Avater carriers on equal terms. At the present 
time the Avharves in HaATrhill on the north bank of the riA^er haA^e 
no railroad connections, but spurs could be run to the whaiwes with¬ 
out physical difficulty, if such connection Avere regarded as advisable. 
On the south bank, in what is noAv Haverhill but is also known as 
Bradford, the box-board factory wharf has a railroad spur so that 
it can get coal either by Avater or by rail. This is true of one other 
Avharf on that bank, though the actual connection is not so complete 
or convenient for interchange of coal from barges to cars, if such 
exchange Avere desirable. I understand that there is, hoAvever, no 
existing contract for interchange of traffic by prorating as to such 
long-distance traffic as may be desired to be carried partly by rail 
and partly by water to its destination. Good city streets are closely 
adjacent to the Avharves in Haverhill and are adequate for all 
present commercial uses. The city authorities seem to be thoroughly 
aroused to the desirability of avoiding monopoly and to be doing all 


MEREIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


23 


in their poAver to encourage effective Avater competition in freight 
matters. At the hearing, and in subsequent correspondence, there is 
ample evidence of Avide popular interest in IlaA^erhill in the matter, 
and of the AAdllingness of the municipal authorities and commercial 
bodies to assist in developing the river, even to the extent of financial 
assistance in paying for the Avork. Mr. Leslie K. Morse, president 
of the Merrimack Valley WaterAvays Association, filed the folioAving 
statement of property oAvned by the city of Haverhill in 1912, border¬ 
ing on the river, Avhich indicates ample opportunity for the erection 
of public landing places open to all Avater carriers on equal terms. 

Haverhill city property hordering on Merrimack River. 


1912. 


Lot, etc., No. 

Description. 

Area. 

Border¬ 
ing river. 

Value. 

37-90-1. 

l^and 

Sq. ft. 
12,550 

15.500 
4,207 
9,480 
5,600 

54,360 
5,600 
22,900 
60,600 

66.500 
37,150 

108,000 

566,280 

Feet. 

245 

215 

32 
85 
80 

165 

80 

105 

470 

900 

300 

500 

900 

45 

33 
20 
25 
25 
50 

$375 
4,500 
800 
1,150 
5,600 
163,075 
5,600 
300 
1,825 
150 
1,850 
400 

900 

19-86-3.. 


20-86-2. 


21-90-5. 


12-49-1. 


12-49-2. 


12-49-1. 


52-227-4. 


55-248-7. 


154-G417-1. 


118-630-2. 


145-728-2. 


151-788-21. 

} . 


1-1. 

AVay. 

5-22. 




5-22. 




6-27. 




12-50. 

_do . 



58. 

_do . 








AboA^e Haverhill there are no existing terminals, but the question 
of provision of public AvharA^es and terminal facilities Avas taken up 
at the hearing in Lawrence, and by the Merrimack Valley Water av ay 
Board, a State commission appointed under the provisions of chapter 
708 of the Massachusetts Acts of 1912, Avhich has extended to me 
Avilling and effectiA^e assistance in securing data for this report. On 
page 21 of the United States hearing of October 4, 1912, the mayor 
of LaAvrence, Hon. Michael A. Scanlon, states: 

The State of Massachusetts, I think, is prepared next year to pass a bill appro¬ 
priating a million dollars. The cities along the Merrimack Valley are pre¬ 
pared to raise another million to go into this with, and we feel that in view of 
the fact that we are Avilling to help ourselA^es in this matter the least the United 
States Government can do would be to help along with as much, at least, as we 
are Avilling to give here. 

No definite statements Avere made as to public Avharves at Lowell, 
except by a Mr. Pierce, Avho said: 

From Hunts Palls, from the commencement up above the mouth of the Con¬ 
cord IliA’er, the Locks & Canals Co. has been constructing for many years, and 
has it noAV nearly constructed, a long granite embankment. * 

Entering the Concord River at a distance of about 500 feet is the commence¬ 
ment of a fine set of locks and canals, and which by three rises puts one aboA-e 
Pawtucket Dam. There is a perfect chance for all kinds of wharfage along 
this new embankment which is now built by the Locks & Canals Co. on either 
side. The city of Lowell has a large public city landing above the mills. 































































24 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 

Definite promises were made at the hearing- Mr. James McMan- 
nimen, of Dracut, and Mr. John H. Murphy, representing the Lowell 
Board of Trade, to give direct answers in writing to the questions 
contained in the circular distributed at the hearing (Appendix to 
this report). To date neither has submitted an answer. In that cir¬ 
cular it will be seen that much stress was laid on definite data as to 
terminal questions and cooperation by the interested parties. In 
reply to the circular letter of the Merrimack Valley WaterAvay Board 
definite replies as to public wharves were received as follows: 

Salisbury: Would not probably care to to the expense of building a public 
wharf. 

Amesbury: We feel as if we bad no jurisdiction in regards to this matter, but 
would be willing to have an article inserted in the Town Warrant of IVIarch 
next to see what action the town would take in the above matter. 

Merrimac: The town is now having its landings defined by the county com¬ 
missioners. We have three, two of which we have already had located and sur¬ 
veyed. So that we are able to oifer for public use two good landing places on 
the Merrimack River in Merrimac. 

Groveland: That undoubtedly the town will do all that is possible to help the 
good work that you have commenced. 

Haverhill: The city of Haverhill will be only too willing to furnish the neces¬ 
sary landing places for public use in the city of Haverhill and upon the INIerri- 
mack River at such time as the public necessities shall require. The city of 
Haverhill has at the present time some 8 or 10 public landling places, and 
several of these could readily be equipped with wharfage facilities. I can 
assure you that our council will do all necessary things to cooperate with your 
honorable board. 

Methuen: The matter would have to be brought before the voters at a town 
meeting. 

Lawrence: That the city council of Lawrence, the legally elected and qualified 
municipal governing board of the city of Lawrence, believing that the dredging 
of the Merrimack River so that it will be navigable would be of inestimable 
benefit to Lawrence and its suburbs, do hereby favor the construction of a 
municipal wharf or pier to accommodate any vessels which would come up the 
river from the sea in the event of the said river being made navigable, and do 
further pledge (so far as they are able) the city of Lawrence to the erection 
of said wharf or pier in the event of the said river being made navigable for 
coastwise vessels. 

Lowell: On behalf of his honor the mayor and members of the municipal 
council, I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication of January 17 and 
to say that the same will be fully considered at a meeting of the council to be 
held on Tuesday, January 28, at 2 o’clock p. m. You will be promptly advised 
of the council’s action, which I believe will be favorable. 

(b) Water 'power^ cooperation^ etc. —The river and harbor act ap¬ 
proved July 25, 1912, requires this report— 

to contain such data as it may be practicable to secure in regard to * * * 

the development and utilization of water power for industrial and commercial 
purposes * * * . Provided, That * * * consideration shall be given 

only to their bearing upon the improvement of navigation, to the possibility and 
desirability of their being coordinated in a logical and proper manner with 
improvements for navigation to lessen the cost of such improvements and to 
compensate the Government for expenditures made in the interest of navigation, 
and to their relation to the development and regulation of commerce. 

The original intent of this legislation Avas probably to cover the 
creation of neAv water potvers as part of Avork in aid of navigation, 
but its Avording is such as to justify a very careful study of the ques¬ 
tion of utilizing, so far as may be economical and legal, the existing^ 
Merrimack KiA^er Avater-poAver developments. The dams and locks 
on the Merrimack River Avere originally authorized under a charter 


1 Not printed. 




MEKEIMACK KIVEE, MASS. AND N. H. 


25 


of the State of Massachusetts (vol. 1, eh. 382, Special Laws of Massa¬ 
chusetts) which Avas passed January 27, 1792, the preamble reading: 

Whereas removing the obstructions to the passing of boats, rafts, and masts 

upon Merrimack Kiver from the divisional line of New Hampshire and INIassa- 

chusetts to the tidewaters of the said river will be of great public utility * * * 

Subseiiuent acts permit purchase of mills and control of water 
powers (January 27, 1825) ; require the maintenance of free landings 
(act of April 7, 1835) ; acknoAvledge a quasi proprietary right in the 
Locks & Canals Co. to the Avater in the river by a provision that the 
Avater taken by the city of LoAvell shall not be sold for power pur¬ 
poses, except to generate steam (ch. 435, Acts, 1855) ; remo\x the 
requirement to maintain and keep up free' landings (ch. 106, 1889, 
and 238, of 1900) ; and, as late as May, 1905 (ch. 385), prohibit the 
Loston & Maine Railroad and others “ in any manner obstructing the 
free Hoav of Avater through said canal or the free passage of boats and 
rafts therein.” 

The State has thus for over 121 years defined and prescribed limi¬ 
tations as to the purpose and use of the fioAving Avater in the Merri¬ 
mack River, guarding on the one hand the rights of navigation and 
on the other the riglits to the poAver produced by the dams hoav owned 
by the Essex Co. In this connection the opinion of Mr. Taft, Secre¬ 
tary of War, given on February 23, 1907, in connection Avith the Des 
Plaines RiA^er, is of interest: 

If the State has any control over the Avater poAA^er which it may exercise in 
conflict Avith the claimed rights of the riparian oAvner, tlien it must exercise it 
itself through its OAvn legislation and through its OAvn executive oflicers. All the 
United States does, assuming it to be a navigable stream, is merely to protect 
the navigation of the stream. With reference to the Avater poAA’er, it has no 
function except in respect to water poAver Avhich it itself creates by its OAvn 
inA'estment in property that it itself OAvns, and then, of course, it may say hoAV 
that Avater poAver shall be used. 

But Avith respect to the AA-ater poAver on a navigable stream, Avhich may be 
exercised Avithout interference Avith the use of the river for navigation purposes, 
that is controlled by the laAVS of the State. It is controlled by the riparian 
OAvnership and by the common laAV as it governs those rights. 

(See also report of subcommittee on dams and Avater poAver to 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Repre¬ 
sentatives, 60th Cong., 2d sess., February 25, 1909.) 

If the United States had built the dam under its poAver to regulate 
navigation there is little question of its right to charge for the poAver 
artificially dcA^eloped by its structure. As stated in congressional 
debates, it could have appointed an agent and have made any agree¬ 
ments with such agent for his compensation and for repaying to the 
United States the money put into the Avork, Avhich, in making navi¬ 
gation possible, also created valuable poAver. Such an agreement 
Avas in fact made by the CommonAvealth of Massachusetts with its 
agent the Locks & Canals Co., Avhen, by special laAv of January 27, 
1825, it alloAved that company to acquire mills, real estate, and to 
conduct manufacturing operations, enabling the company to derive 
reA^enue from water passing its dams in excess of the needs of navuga- 
tion, this being Aurtually a payment by the Commonwealth, in view 
of the money expended by the agent of the Commonwealth in origi¬ 
nally building the dams for navigation. The CommonAvealth deriA^ed 
its benefits in the shape of navigation at reasonable toll rates estab¬ 
lished by its own statutes. The Locks & Canals Co. derived income 


26 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


from the tolls, upon which alone it originally depended for its in¬ 
come, and later from the sale of water power. In order to pass the 
Lawrence Dam the United States must construct a canal connecting 
with the pool above that dam; by such connection it will derive much 
benefit from the artificially created depth above the dam, thereby 
gaining an unknown but great reduction in the cost of creating a 
deep channel to Lowell. To operate its canal it must use water for 
lockage, the lockage water being drawn from a level higher than the 
natural level of the river surface at Lawrence, by an amount at least 
equal to the height of the dam. By a high-level canal carrying the upper 
pool level down the south side of the river to a point below Mitchells 
Falls and there locking down into the tidal river the United States 
can save the cost of much rock excavation in the bed of the river, 
which would be unavoidable if the Lawrence Dam were nonexistent. 

Before recommending such utilization of the high-level pool it has 
seemed necessary to study and quote such opinions and decisions bear¬ 
ing directly on the relative rights and powers of the United States 
and the several States as were accessible to the district officer making 
this report. Up to this time the claim of the United States to water 
in a river has been held to be paramount where such water is used 
solely for navigation purposes, a possible exception being water 
needed for sanitary uses (see the case of the Chicago Drainage 
Canal). Does this paramount right cover the utilizing at this late 
day of the increased level of the water in the pool created by the 
present Lawrence Dam, which was legally constructed about 1848 by 
the State of Massachusetts through a legally appointed agent, long 
prior to any act of Congress asserting the superior right of the 
United States? The State created the pool originally for navigation 
only but later, for valuable considerations, permitted all water in 
the pool not needed by the State for its navigation to be used for 
power development by private parties. Would the withdrawal for 
navigation purposes of water from the pool by the United States 
constitute a “ taking ” for public use, for which payment should be 
made? Could such a claim be made either by the State or by its 
agent, the power company? 

In the State of Ohio a decision of the State Supreme Court, based 
on the common law similar to that in force in Massachusetts, reads: 

Hence the State in its exercise of the right of eminent domain can subject 
the waters of such stream to other public uses, the same as any other private 
property, by making a just compensation for the injury and not otherwise. 

Citing this decision in the debate on the Connecticut dam bill 
(p. 3171, Congressional Eecord, 1913), it was stated: 

That means the State can authorize that right to be secured by condemnation 
proceedings in behalf of a superior public purpose. For instance, to illustrate: 
Water power is created, in the first instance, to operate a gristmill or a saw¬ 
mill, and eventually a big town or city grows up in the neighborhood. The 
town or the city may need the water in that dam for domestic use to supply 
its inhabitants. That, under the circumstances, would be a superior public 
right, and the State could authorize the property of the water-power company 
to be condemned for that purpose, but it could not take it absolutely without 
compensation. 

The closely related subject. Can the United States charge power 
companies for the privilege of building dams and creating power 
in navigable streams? has been at issue between Congress and the 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND K. H. 


27 


Executive for over four years, and many of the arguments apply 
to the present question. The veto of several dam bills and, on 
May 23, 1908, the passage of the Rainy River dam act over such a 
veto have a direct bearing. In a committee report dated February 
25, 1909, the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House 
of Representatives, discussing the subject of a general dam law, say: 

These immense natural resources * * * should be developed for the 

real welfare of the whole country and not solely for the benefit of those few 
individuals who had the shrewdness and foresight to acquire such property 
rights as may be sufficient to dominate and utilize mostly for themselves these 
privileges. At the same time due regard must be had to the private rights 
which such individuals may have acquired and of which they can not be 
deprived without due process of law and which can not be taken from them 
without just compensation. 

This report is noteworthy because it expresses the views of an im¬ 
portant House committee after it had been considering nearly 10 
months the veto message of April 13, 1908, in which the President 
said: 

The present policy in making these grants is unwise in giving away the 
property of the people in the flowing waters to individuals or organizations, etc. 

The Congressional Record for February and March, 1913, con¬ 
tains valuable data on the subject, in connection with the Connecti¬ 
cut River dam bill (S. 8033), which passed the Senate February 17, 
1913 (74 3 ^eas, 12 nays, 9 not voting) ; it contained a clause requiring 
an annual charge to be paid to the United States by the power com¬ 
pany. A charge by the United States against the owners of the 
same Connecticut dam was an item in the river and harbor bill (H. R. 
28180) when it passed the Senate. A similar charge was a feature 
in another item regarding power derived from a dam built by the 
United States in the Mississippi River near St. Paul, Minn. Both 
items went out in conference, on account of pronounced objection on 
the part of the House of Representatives to making such a charge; 
all this accentuates the likelihood of congressional opposition to an 
item in a river and harbor bill involving a possibility that the United 
States might have to pay a power company for the use of the high- 
level pools constituting already improved reaches of the Merrimack 
River, although in the first instance these pools were, in good faith, 
created solely for navigation purposes. That grave doubt still exists 
as to the relations between the Federal and State Governments in 
connection with the control of water powers is emphasized by the 
following remarks of Senator Brandegee on the Connecticut River 
dam bill (p. 2748, Congressional Record for February, 1913): 

Perhaps half the lawyers in the Senate think one way and the other half the 
other on this question; perhaps the court itself may divide; but we certainly 
can never arrive anywhere in the development of our water power, which is 
now running to waste all over the country, by having the Chief Executive veto 
all the bills that we pass which do not contain a provision for some sort of 
compensation and by having one House or the other block their passage if they 
do contain it. 

Massachusetts is not one of the States in which it has been estab¬ 
lished as a rule of property, governing riparian land, that mere 
priority of occupation or appropriation gives rights superior to those 
of the riparian owner in the beneficial use of the waters and the beds 
of streams. The water-power developments at Lawrence appear to 


28 


MEREIMACK EIVEE, MASS. AND N. H. 


be owned subject to the common law (slightly modified), just as was 
the case Avith the Connecticut River dam. 

In the report of the Board of Engineers on the 14-foot waterway 
from Chicago to St. Louis (H. Doc. No. 263, 59th Cong. 1st sess., p. 
11), it is stated: 

It is the opinion of the board that the sanitary reasons for the abstraction of 
water so far exceed and overshadow the commercial reasons that the amount 
should he strictly limited by the sanitary necessities of the case. 

This has a bearing on the question of the abstraction by the Metro¬ 
politan Water and Sewerage Board of drinking water from the tribu¬ 
taries of the Merrimack River, of which complaint Avas made at the 
hearing in LaAAU’ence, as being a cause of extreme Ioav water in the 
riA-er. At the LaAvrence hearing and in the circular distributed 
thereat an attempt Avas made to learn Avhether any charge would be 
attempted by the Essex Co. for such Avater as might be required by 
the United States for lockage past the LaAvrence Dam, but absolutely 
no reply Avas obtained. It has since been impossible to get an ex¬ 
pression of opinion on this subject from anyone in authority. 
Whether the Metropolitan board pays the Essex Co. for the Avater 
they now prevent from entering the Concord RiA^er is not known. 
The Nashua and Concord Rivers lie wholly in the State of Massa¬ 
chusetts, and their Avaters apparently come under the reasoning^of 
Mr. Justice BreAver in the case of United States v. Rio Grande (174 
U. S., 709), Avhere he says, regarding the Croton River: 

Its waters are taken by the State of New York for domestic uses in the 
city of New York. Umiuestionably the State of New York has a right to 
appropriate its waters and the United States may not question such appropria¬ 
tion, unless thereby the navigation of the Hudson be disturbed. 

Before the United States appropriates money for a project iiiAmlv- 
ing the use of the pool aboA-e the LaAvrence Dam for naAugation, and 
of Avater from that pool for lockages in a canal beloAV the dam, this 
right to use Avithout compensation should be definitely settled. 

' If the improvement were stopped beloAv the dam at Lawrence, and 
naAdgation to that point Avas provided for by excavation and not by 
a dam on the river below as proposed in House Document No. 9, 
Sixty-second Congress, first session, the water surface beloAv the 
LaAvrence Dam Avould be dropped about 10 feet, the fall at the time 
of loAv Avater being thus increased from about 27 feet to about 37 
feet, and the power available in like ratio. In Anew of this increase 
in available power, an effort was made to learn Avhether the Essex 
Co. Avould contribute funds to assist in the creation of such an ex- 
cav'ated channel. No formal reply was made, but it was intimated 
that it would cost so much to loAver their wheel pits that no financial 
benefit Avould result to the mills, and therefore no cooperation could 
be looked for from that source. It has been held generally that 
backing up Avater so as to lessen the available fall at a power dam 
by the construction of a new dam lower down the river is a taking 
of poAver for which payment is due the OAvner of the original power 
dam; that this applied in equity to the United States Avas recognized 
in the project of Col. Edward Burr for a 14-foot channel to Haver¬ 
hill to be produced by a dam at Lions Mouth, and for that reason the 
crest of his dam was kept doAvn to 11.14 feet above mean low water 
at Black Rocks beacon. On the ground that a 14-foot channel was 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


29 


too shallow for coastwise barges of the present type, and deeper than 
would be needed for purely river navigation in suitably designed 
river barges, since locally recognized as true by all parties, that 
project was not approved by the War Department or taken up by 
Congress. To give a deeper channel than 14 feet to Haverhill with¬ 
out producing backwater at the Lawrence tailraces would involve at 
least 3 feet of excavation. With the crest of a dam at Lions Mouth 
at reference 11.14 all authorities agree that small discharge at low 
stages and drowning out at high water would render unmarketable 
nnd useless any power developed by that dam. As a summary of the 
Avater-power situation it appears that the United States might have 
to pay high for anything adversely affecting existing water-power 
installations, and that at this time no assistance, financial or other¬ 
wise, can be expected by the United States from poAver deA^eloped or 
to be deA^eloped in connection Avith the improA^ement of navigation. 

(c) The only other subjects connected with the project so directly 
as to come within the province of the act are sewage, ice, and the 
general scope of improA^ement. A State report on the sewage situa¬ 
tion is appended, marked “Appendix G.” SeAvage and ice both came 
up at the hearing. A protest against putting in a dam at Lions 
Mouth Avas made under date of August 29, 1912, by a Mr. Richard 
Newell, of West NeAvbury, on the ground that it Avould destroy the 
current in the river and result in a stagnant pool so impregnated 
Avith organic matter by the seAvers of LaAvrence and LoAvell as to- 
constitute a threat to the health of the community. In speaking to 
this question Mr. M. J. Sullivan, president of the Merchants’ Associa¬ 
tion of LaAvrence and a member of the LaAvrence Board of Trade, 
said: 

It is the general opinion here that the sewers would have to be removed and 
the sewerage filtered in a A^ery short time anyAAmy, and thence transported to 
the sea by a large outlet or discharge pipe. That Avill have to be done soon 
anyAA’ay, and it may AA^ell be done at this time. 

Mr. Sullivan Avas asked to ansAver in writing the other questions 
in the circular distributed at the hearing. He said he Avould. No 
such ansAvers haA^e been received to date. Mr. Ralph D. Hood, 
alderman, of Haverhill, stated: 

The seAverage proposition in Haverhill is to be cared for in the near future. 
The State board of health are at the present time going over this entire propo¬ 
sition Avith a vieAV to eliminating the sewage from tlie Merrimack Valley. That 
applies to LoAvell, LaAvrence, HaA^erhill, NeAvburyport, and also all our in¬ 
tervening toAvns. 

Mr. Hood also stated regarding ice: 

In regard to the effect of existing dams on fioods and ice gorges at the time 
of the spring break-up, I think they help that matter. At Ha\'erhill all ice that 
comes across the dam is broken up in small pieces. Therefore it does not 
gather on our bridges, and Ave have not had an ice gorge for several years. I 
think the dam helps l)reak the ice up more than anything else. 

In regard to the time Avhen it opens up, it is at any time from the 1st of 
February to the 1st of April, entirely depending upon the season. 

As to the general scope of the improvement desired at this time, 
the matter was well summed up by Mr. Hood, Avho said: 

The trouble is—I did not intend to criticize my betters in any Avay —that they 
have simply been doAvn to Congress and got an appropriation of $10,000 or 
$15,000 or $20,000, a mere drop in the bucket, and come up here and spent it, 
getting somebody pleased and patting them on the shoulder, and that is the 


30 


* MEERIMACK RIVEE^ MASS. AND N. H. 


way it has gone. When any further money is appropriated for this river it 
should be enough to bring this river up to a certain standard, to be decided upon 
by your hoard of engineers and by those who are interested. And then the 
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, which will take an interest in this matter, 
will do their part in regard to the furnishing of terminal facilities and will 
do as much as the United States Government will have to do to develop their 
portion of the river. By all parties taking hold in this way, with the munici¬ 
palities along the line, I believe we can all get together and work for a common 
end and make this river worth something to Essex County, to nortlieastern 
Massachusetts, and fo the Federal Government as well. And it is only by a 
concentrated working out on this plan that anything can be done. 

8. References to examination or survey reports and mays or ylans 
not in project documents — 


Section covered. 

Congressional documents. 

Annual 
reports of 
Chief of 
Engineers. 

House 

or 

Senate 

No. 

Congress. 

Session. 

Year. 

Page. 

Near mouth of river, and thence to above 







Haverhill: i 







1869. 

House... 

2 Ex. 25 

Forty-first.. 

Second.. 

2 1869 

421 

1872. 





2 1873 

1,112 

1874. 





2 1876 

165 

1896 . . . .. . 





2 1896 

590 

Nev/buryport to Haverhill, 1897 2 . 

House... 

2 52 

Fifty-fifth... 

First.... 

2 1897 

865 

Newburyport bar to Haverhill, 1894-95. 

.. .do. 

< 168 

Fifty-fourth. 

.. .do. 

2 1896 

616 

Haveltine Rapids to Lawrence, 1871. 




2 1872 

961 

Lawrence, Mass., to Manchester, N. H., 1881 





2 1882 

532 

Lowell to old New Hampshire State line. 

House... 

< 242 

Fifty-fifth... 

Second.. 

2 1898 

884 

1897. 







Newburyport to Haverhill, 9-foot channel. 

...do. 

2311 

Fifty-eighth. 

...do. 

2 1904 

872 

1903. 







Newburyport to Haverhill, 12-fnot ehannel, 

do 

2 339 

Fifty-ninth.. 

...do. 



i906. 







Removing obstructions at mouth, 1906.. . . 

.do. .. 

4 339 

.do. 

...do. 



Mouth of river to Haverhill, 14-foot channel. 

do 

4 9 

Sixty-first... 

First.... 



1908. 






Haverhill to Lowell, 1910. 

.. do. 

2 9 

Sixty-second 

...do. 










1 Project of 1870 as extended 1874 and 1896. ^ Existing project, Mar. 3, 1899. 

2 No maps. ^ Contains maps. 


9. Wcndhy or not worthy .—This crucial question includes many 
factors which can be approximated only within wide and uncertain 
limits without expenditures for surveys. The following data bearing 
on the subject have been carefully collected and compiled by the 
State Merrimack Valley Waterway Board, created by chapter 708, 
acts of 1912, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and furnished to this 
office: 

ASSESSED VALUATION, POPULATION, ETC. 

Bordering upon the river banks are the following cities and towns, with an 
aggregate population of over 300,000 people: Amesbury, Andover, Chelmsford, 
Dracut, Groveland, Haverhill, Lawu'ence, Lowell, Merrimac, IMethuen, Newbury, 
Newburyport, North Andover, Salislniry, Tewksbury, Tyngsborough, and West 
Newbury. 

In these cities and towns, with an assessed valuation April 1, 1912, of over 
$250,000,000, are located over 839 mercantile establishments with a capital 
invested of over $168,000,000. The value of the stock and raw^ material used 
by these concerns annually exceeds $112,000,000, while the manufactured 
product is valued in excess of $187,000,000. 

The coal consumption of the above cities and towns exceeds 1,200,000 tons, 
only approximately 135,000 of which is received by water. It is the opinion of 
manufacturers along the Merrimack River that if a water route w^ere provided 
for the receipt of this commodity alone the saving in freight rates would 















































MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


31 


a\Giag6 fioiu 50 CGnts to $1 a ton, to say nothing of the vast saving on general 
merchandise and raw material received and manufactured product shipped to 
and from the various cities and towns along the river. 

The cities of Nashua, Manchester, and Concord are also situated on the Mer¬ 
rimack River, and in these cities are situated some of the greatest manufac¬ 
turing concerns in the world, as, for example, the Amoskeag Manufacturing 
Co. (the largest cotton mill in the world) and the American Locomotive Co. 


Freight traffic at Lawrence. 


[From figures compiled 

Pacific mills: 

Cotton_ 

Wool_ 

Coal_ 

Miscellaneous freight_ 

Woven cloth_ 

Atlantic mills: 

INIaterial_ 

Coal_ 

Oil and kerosene_ 

^Manufactured product_ 

Waste_ 

E. Frank Lewis, wool scourer: 

Coal_ 

Wool handled_ 

Ayer mill; 

Coal_ 

AVool_ 

Pemberton mills: 

Coal_ 

Cotton_ 

Miscellaneous freight_ 

AVashington mills: 

Coal_ 

AA'ool_ 

Oil, kerosene, etc_ 

AVaste_ 


by the Lawrence Board of Trade.] 

Per annum. 

-tons__ ^ 5, 000 

-do_ ' 5, 000 

-do_' 75, 000 

-do_"30,000 

-do_ 5, 000 

-,_do_ " 3, 750 

-do_ " 7, 000 

-do_ " 200 

-bales__ 18, 000 

-do_ * 2, 000 

-tons_ 4, 000 

_do_ 11, 000 


do_ 25, 000 

do_ 8, 500 

do_ 2, 200 

do_ 1, 350 

do_ 150 


do_ 67, 000 

do_ 15, 000 

do__ 15 

do_ 1, 000 


AA'alworth Bros, use 30 tons of coal per week. 
Farwell Rleachery, 8,000 tons of coal per year. 
Kimball Shoe Co., 400 tons per year. 


Summary of the Classes of Freight and General Statistics as to City of 
Lawrence, from Figures Comiuled by the Lawrence Board of Trade. 


The Board of Trade of Lawrence have submitted the following figures for the 
information of the Merrimack A^alley AVaterway Board, the results compiled 
from letters sent in by the various concerns in the city of Lawrence with such 
other figures as were in the possession of the board of trade. 

The inward freight itemized as follows: 


Tons. 

Soft coal_ 425, 000 

Hard coal_ 85, 000 

Lumber_ 120, 000 

Groceries and provisions_ 17, 000 

IMerchandise_ 400, 000 

Raw material and miscellaneous freight_ 315, 000 


Total_ 1,362,000 

Statistics as to outward freight are very meager, those available to the 
board of trade amounting to but 45,000 tons. 

Official figures obtained from the Boston & Maine Railroad, giving the out¬ 
ward and inward traffic in the city of Lawrence, are as follows: Inward and 
outward freight, 2,400,000 tons per year. 


1 Incoming freight. 


2 Outgoing freight. 
































32 


MERBIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


The freight receipts of the Boston & Maine llailroad for the year 1911 for 
the city of Lawrence amounted to the sum of .$2,000,000, which is 5 per cent 
of the gross business of the Boston & Maine system. 

LAWRENCE. 

Lawrence is the fastest growing city in Essex County. A great manufactur¬ 
ing center, on the Merrimack Biver, which turns more spindles than any other 
stream in the world; 26 miles from Boston; 20 miles from the sea. 

Population, 85,892; polls, 21,737; assessed valuation, .$75,.500,000; tax rate, 
$17 60. 

The' focus of 6 lines of railroads; 30 passenger trains to and from the city 
daily. Center of a great electric railway plant, controlling 50 miles of track; 
9,000,000 passengers a year. 

Gas and electricity; low rates for lighting and power. The great dam de¬ 
velops 155 mill powers, 11,896 gross horsex)ower. Capital of factories using 
water power, $15,000,000. 

Thirty school buildings; 15,000 pupils in public and private schools. Public 
industrial school. 

Two national, 3 trust companies, 3 savings, and cooperative banks. Assets 
of savings banks, $17,000,000. 

A handsome public library of 60,000 volumes. 

Ninety-live miles of broad, well-kept streets; 3 steam rollers, and crusher 
plant. 

Sixty miles of sewer. Park system of 136 acres. 

A water supply—high and low service—uneqnaled in the world. 

An efficient lire department, 9 fire stations; lowest fire insurance rates in the 
State. 

Forty churches. One Artillery, 2 Infantry companies, in handsome State 
armory. 

A shire town of Essex County; courthouse and registry of deeds. 

Statistics of the city of Manchester, N. H., prepared under the direction of the 

Chamhcr of Commerce of Manchester—This tahle is included, as the creation 

of a large coal terminal at Laiorence or Loivell might affect coal prices due to 

less length of railroad haul and possibility of electric railway coal freighting. 


Population: 

1910 _ 70, 063 

1900_ .56, 987 

1911 (county)_ 126,072 

Total tax valuation: 

1909_$38.102, 944 

1911 _$41,736,846 

1912 (full)_$68,452,145 

Tax rate per $100: 

1911 _ $2. 04 

1912 __ $1. 50 

Miles from Boston_ 53 

Trains to and from Boston daily_ 20 

Tributary towns: 

Bedford (population, 1,110)_miles_ 6 

Goffstown (population, 2,579)_do_ 8 ^ 

Hooksett (population, 1,528)_do_ 7 

Auburn (population, 637)_do_ 1^ 

Goffs Falls_do_ 1^ 

Has a tributary population of_ 250, 000 

Area of city_square miles_ 33. 9 

Scholars in— 

Public schools_ 5, 337 

Parochial schools_ 3 , 395 

Miles of— 

Water pipe laid_ 117 

Streets- 206 























MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


33 


Miles of—Continued, 

Sewers_ 

Street railway_ 

Public parks (area, 160 acres)__ 

Churches_ 

Volumes in public library_ 

Passenger trains north and south daily_ 

Cotton and woolen mills_ 

Number of people employed_ 

Number of spindles_ 

Number of looms_ 

Pounds cotton used yearly_ 

Pounds wool used yearly_ 

Yards cotton cloth woven yearly_ 

Yards woolen cloth woven yearly_ 

Number turbine wheels__ 

Annual pay roll, mill operatives_ 

Savings banks deposits_'_ 

Electric light company_ 

Electric street lights running all night_ 

Bonded indebtedness of city_ 

Bonded indebtedness of city, exclusive of water bonds_ 

Sinking fund for city and water bonds_ 

Number of shoe factories_^_ 

Average yearly pay roll_ 

Average number pairs of shoes yearly_ 

Number operatives_ 

Cigar industry employs over_people 

Pay roll (annual) over_ 

Number cigars made annually_ 

Net annual income on which city is run_ 

Number of men on police force_ 

Appropriation {1912)_ 

Number of men on fire department_ 

Appropriation (1912)_^_ 

Population of State (1910)- 


84 

40 

13 

42 

65, 000 
60 
36 
15,000 
670, 000 
24, 000 
63,100, 000 
15, 300, 000 
235, 873, 750 
21, 000, 000 
50 

$ 6 , 200 , 000 
$27, 039, 313 
1 

625 

$1, 645, 000 
$945, 000 
$716, 885 
10 

$3, 450, 000 
14,150, 000 
8, 000 
850 

$ 6 , 000 , 000 
13, 000, 000 
$ 1 , 000 , 000 
53 

$85, 980 
181 
$138, 575 
430, 572 


City is on six lines of railroad. Is 41 miles from seacoast. Recreation re¬ 
sorts: Pine Island Park, Massabesic Lake, Uncanoonuc Mountain. 


^Statistics of Loicell, Lawrence, Haverhill, and Netvburyport, Mass., from tables 
of the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics for 1910. 


Town. 

Number 
of estab¬ 
lish¬ 
ments. 

Capital 

invested. 

Value of 
stock used. 

Amount 

wages 

yearly. 

People 

em¬ 

ployed. 

Value of 
product. 

Powell . 

234 

!§53.048,164 

$34,329,970 

$13,453,078 

31,449 
27,983 

$56,612,154 

T ,fl.wrflnpfi. 

129 

79,657,571 

41,739,427 

12,178,666 

69,574,701 

TTavfirhill . 

325 

14,498,562 

22,188,928 

7,175,882 

1,581,543 

12,186 

35,650,830 

NAwhnrvnnrt. 

53 

4,876,477 

3,951,983 

3,156 

7,002,724 





Statistics of Nashua and ]\[anchester, N. H., for 1908, compiled under Gov. 

Floyd and board. 


Town. 

Number 
of estab¬ 
lishments. 

Capital 

invested. 

Value 
of stock 
used. 

Amount 

wages 

yearly. 

People 

em¬ 

ployed. 

Value of 
product. 

Na.sbufl.. 

92 

$7,321,960 

(0 

$3,452,026 

7,451 

$17,176,439 

\f an Chester. 

157 

25,208,766 

(9 

9,744,839 

23,699 

40,397,334 

■■ 



II. Doc. 1813, 64-2 


3 


1 No data given. 




















































































34 


MEKRIMACK EIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 

Summary of Answers to Questions Offictatxy Asked by the Merrimack 

Valley Waterway Board, 

question no. 1. 

What amount of coal per year brought by rail is now used by you, and what 
is the approximate freight charge to you per ton—or what is the cost per ton 
of coal delivered to you? 

ANSWER. 



Tons coal 
delivered. 

Price per 
ton. 

Freight rate. 

Lowell. 

184,425 
404,495 
61,485 

6,930 
137,450 

$4.30-88.50 
4.50- 8.00 
(0 

8.60- 9.20 
4.36- 8.00 

83.25 all-rail from mines to Lowell. 

$2.25-82.35 all-rail from mines to Lawrence. 

$2.95 all-rail from mines to Haverhill; 85 cents all-rail 
from tidewater (Newburyport, Salem, or Mystic). 
$3.05 all-rail from mines to Amesbury. 

$3.05 all-rail from mines to Newburyport. 

Lawrence. 

Haverhill. 

Amesbury. 

Newburyport. 



1 Varying. 


QUESTION NO. 2. 

What, in your opinion, would be the saving in cost to you, per ton, if the coal 
which you require could be brought by water instead of by rail? 

ANSWER. 

Lowell; The saving per ton v.ais expressed as from 35 cents to $1, which could 
be saved were the coal received by wjiter rather than by rail. 

Lawrence: It is the opinion of the various firms in the city that from 35 
cents to 50 cents could be saved a ton were the coal to be received by water 
instead of by rail. 

Haverhill: The opinion was expressed that from 50 cents to $1 per ton would 
be saved could the coal be brought by water. 

Amesbury : No information obtainable. 

Newburyport: A saving of from 10 to 15 cents was reported. The Phila¬ 
delphia & Reading Coal & Iron Co., owners and occupants of the largest wharf 
in the city, are of the opinion that the saving to them would be of large pro¬ 
portions if the river were deepened, since the company has several classes of 
barges which are now unable to enter Newburyport Harbor because of the 
shallow depth of water. Were the river deepened vessels with a larger coal 
capacity could dock at the wharf, and in one cargo the company would receive 
the same amount of coal as is now received in two of the vessels touching 
at this port, by reason of the increased capacity of the barges. 


QUESTION NO. 3. 


What amount of freight, other than coal, is now brought to you by rail per 
year ? 


ANSWER. 


Lowell; This question was answered by many merchants, and resulted in a 
total of 58,365 tons of freight being received by such concerns annually. 
This total must not be taken as an accurate statement of the tonnage of inward 
freight (other than coal) in the city of Lowell, for the reason that a great 
many firms in answering the question expressed the value of the freight 
(exclusive of coal) instead of expressing the tonnage. For instance, one 
brm pays annually $94,000 in freight charges, another firm pays $24,000, and 
then other concerns report that their freight bills for 1911 were $119,500. 
Other firms indicated specific property, such as 7,000,000 feet of lumber, etc., 
which is received by them annually. 

Lawrence: Replies to this question received by the Merrimack Valley Water¬ 
way Board totaled 271,635 tons of freight. 
















MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


35 


Haverhill: This question resulted in a total of 73,700 tons of freight other 
than coal now received in Haverhill. Many firms answering this question 
gave tlie money value of the freight instead of the customary units of weight; 
as, for example, one firm paid the sum of $2,500 in freight charges last year. 
Ameshury: That upv/ard of 2,000 tons of freight were received in the town 
Newburyport: A total of 9,800 tons. The Standard Oil Co., the owners of a 
wharf and a plant on Rings Island (which ishnnd is situated directly across the 
river from the city of Newburyport), reported that they receive by water 
597,309 gallons of gasoline and oil, or a total of 1,792 short tons. 


QUESTION NO. 4. 


What, in your opinion, would he the saving to you in freight charges if the 
same kind of freight could be brought by water instead of by rail? 


ANSWER. 

I.owell: It appeared to be the general opinion as expressed by the answers 
received that the saving to the business concerns in the city of Lowell would 
he from 25 to 50 per cent if freight could be brought by water to the city. 

I.awrence: The opinion is expressed that from 40 cents to $1 per ton would 
he saved on freight were a water route available. Many firms answering this 
question gave a lump sum as the estimated saving; as, for example, “ We 
would save $1,500 on freight charges,” etc. 

Haverhill: The opinion expressed is that from 33J to 60 per cent could be 
saved. Many firms, in answering tliis question, instead of giving their answers 
on a percentage bjisis figured the rail rates and water rates and gave the 
answer in dollars and cents. 

Ameshury: No information obtainable. 

Newburyport: The opinion expressed was that the saving would he from 
33^ to 50 per cent. Cant. George P. Woodman states that there are 300,000 
tons of general freight in and out of Newburyport annually; that tlie saving 
to the people of Newburyport in transportation charges would amoiuit to 50 
per cent. 

QUESTION NO. 5. 

What amount of freight is now shipped by you by rail which could be 
shipped by water if the Merrimack River is improved to the extent of pro¬ 
viding an adequate channel from the mouth of the river to Lowell? 


ANSWER. 

Lowell: Tlie answers to this question resulted in a total of 11,320 tons. The 
majority of replies were very general, and the amount of tonnage was not 
expressed. The firms answering, wliile not giving the amount of tonnage of 
their freight, replied with such answers as, “ Would ship all of it,” “ Could 
ship some of it,” and others gave specific commodities which they might ship 
by water if a water route was provided. 

Lawrence: The answers brought out a total of 35,848 tons of freight which 
might he shipped by water were the river improved so as to make shipping 
possible. The tonnage to this question will not do justice to the amount of 
freight which might be shipped by water because a great many of the business 
houses in reply to this question answered in a general way instead of answering 
in the customary units of tons; for example, “We would ship all of our 
freight by water,” “As much of our raw material comes from the South we 
would make use of a water route,” “ One-half of our outward freight of a 
similar nature.” Thus no light is thrown on the question of what the actual 
tonnage would be. 

Haverhill: Answers to this question totaled 33,000 tons, but this result is no 
indication of the amount of freight which could he shipped by water, as many 
of the firms in answering this question replied as follows: “All of it ” (meaning 
their freight), while others named specific things that they might ship by way 
of a water route, for example, “ 9,000,000 feet of lumber,” “ 500,000 box shooks,’' 
“ 12,000 cases of shoes,” etc. 

Ameshuiw: No information obtainable. 

Newburyport: No answer. 


36 


MEKRIMACK KIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 

QUESTION NO. 6. 

Do you own, lease, or occupy or control a wharf or landing place on the 
Merrimack River adapted to use for the receipt and dispatch of freight and 
passengers? 

ANSWER. 

liOwell: In answer to questions 6 and 7, it appears that no business house 
has the ownership or control of any wharf in the city. Many firms replied that 
there were enough city landings which, if improved and developed, would pro¬ 
vide ample facilities for the proper receipt and dispatch of passengers and 
freight, were the river improved; and that tliey (the firms answering) would 
undoubtedly use these, wharves in conjunction with others. 

Lawrence: Only two firms had the ownership or title to land on the water¬ 
front, but the majority are in favor of procuring a wharf to be used in con¬ 
junction with other firms for the receipt and dispatch of freight and passengers. 

Haverhill: Many of the firms in Haverhill own and occupy wharves, and 
all are willing to provide a suitable wharf were the river improved to such an 
extent as to make it navigable for vessels of fair draft. 

Amesbury: At least three firms own and occupy wharves. 

Newburyport: This question disclosed the fact that there were six firms 
who now own and occupy wharves in Newburyport. 

QUESTION NO. 7. 

If a project for the improvement of navigation in the Merrimack River from 
the mouth of the river to Lowell should be carried out providing an adequate 
channel, would you provide a suitable wharf or landing place on the river for 
the receipt and dispatch of either freiglit or passengers, or both? 

ANSWER. 

Lowell, Lawrence, Haverhill, and Amesbury: Answered under question 6. 

Newburyport: Answered in the affirmative in almost all cases. 

QUESTION NO. 8. 

What, in your opinion, should be the least depth in any improved channel of 
the Merrimack River between the mouth of the river and Lowell? 

ANSWER. 

Lowell: Opinion placed the depth at from 10 to 25 feet. 

Lawrence: Some placed the depth at 10 feet, while, others placed it at 20. 

Haverhill: Opinion differs, varying from 14 to 22 feet, but the majority are 
in favor of a 22-foot depth. The Standard Oil Co. have a wharf and plant in 
the city of Haverhill, and at this point the company receives 853,196 gallons of 
gasoline and kerosene, or a total of 2,560 short tons. Even in the present state 
of the river it is possible for an oil-tank steamer to navigate the Merrimack 
as far as the works of the Standard Oil Co. in Haverhill. 

Amesbury: The opinion expressed is that it should be 20 feet. 

Newburyport: As to the depth of the river between its mouth and the. city 
of Lowell, opinion was divided. Many men expressed the opinion that the 
depth should be at least 25 feet, while others went so far as to place the depth 
at 10 feet. 

The record ^ of the United States hearing of October 4, which was 
held in Lawrence, and of the hearings given by the State Merrimack 
^"alley Waterway Board at Newburyport, September 16, 1912; at 
Haverhill, November 25, 1912, at Amesbury, November 25, 1912; at 
Lawrence, November 20, 1912; and at Lowell, December 2, 1912, 
covers in the aggregate 232 typewritten pages of matter verbally 
presented. This office has also received many written statements 
bearing on the worthiness of the river for improvement either by 


1 Not printed. 



MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AISD K. IT. 


37 


the United States or by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, or by 
the two in conjunction. As far up as Haverhill actual water-borne 
commerce exists, and statistics thereof will be given later in this 
report; but for the part of the river above Haverhill there is now 
no water-borne commerce, and the statistics quoted above and those 
contained in the reports of the hearings are the only basis on which 
to predicate what traffic may be expected to develop on the river, 

if the present lack of facilities be removed. There is a mass of 

testimony to the fact that railroad rates are abnormally high; that 
railway delivery is slow and unsatisfactory; that the people in 
general want a water line competing with the railroad; and that 
they would ship largely by water if such a line were opened and 
running regularly. Some testimony was offered to the effect that 
in the past as soon as a-steamer began to run on the river, it was 
bought up and put out of service by those interested in the railroad. 
The main desire appeared to be for cheaper coal, but no one spoke 

at the hearings with authority to ])ersonally represent the great 

manufacturing concerns, who burn immense quantities of coal in 
auxiliary plants and who would appear to be specially interested in 
chea]) fuel. At the United States hearing there was an engineer of 
the Essex Co., controlling all the dams and canals, but he had no 
authority to speak for the company, and said he was present to learn 
and not to instruct. I understand that at hearings on former pre¬ 
liminary studies of projects for the Merrimack River this has been 
the attitude of the power companies. On the other hand, the officers 
of that organization have thrown open to both the State commission 
and m 3 ^self their records of gauge readings, discharges, maps, and 
drawings, and the making of full copies of such papers has been 
allowed without hesitation. In view of the intimate relations of 
their business to any change in liAKlraulic conditions in the Merri¬ 
mack River, this free offer of facts and records is creditable. 

Where such a mass of testimony is available it is not eas}^ to pre¬ 
sent a just summar^q but it is perhaps not unfair to state that careful 
study of the whole brings out the following salient facts: (1) The 
river is now utilized to its last drop for manufacturing; (2) millions 
of private funds are invested in the dams, canals, and factories; (3) 
dependent on the mills and living between Haverhill and Lowell is 
a population probably more dense than anywhere else along an equal 
number of miles of river, navigable or not, in the United States; 
(4) conditions of manufacturing are such that much of this dense 
population consists of foreigners of small means, in need of cheap 
fuel and cheap food; (5) not only is a large population of foreign 
origin concentrated in this area, but the capital locally invested in 
manufacturing is very large; (6) agricultural matters hardly enter 
appreciably into the question, the river farms being within hauling 
distance of the cities on the river; (7) the total length of river under 
consideration is only about 38 miles, and the annual value of manu¬ 
factures along the upper 18 miles, the part above Haverhill, aggre¬ 
gates $126,186,855, or at the rate of about $7,000,000 per niile per 
annum; (8) a project forms no.part of a preliminary examination, 
but sufficient facts have been obtained for this office by the State 
board to make it probable that at great cost deep-water navigation 
can be made physically possible to Lowell, or at least to the foot of 


38 


MERPtlMACK IlIVER^ MASS. AND N. IT. 


Hunts Falls, a mile and a half only below Lowell, within easy auto 
truck hauling of all coal consumers in that city; (9) the river is 
closed by ice for three or four months a year; (10) no matter what is 
done artificially to better matters freshets and violent currents pre¬ 
vent navigation for perhaps another month; (11) full commercial 
advantage has been taken of the water so far provided to Haverhill; 

(12) above the point where the tide ebbs and flows no fresh-water 
discharge is available for days at a time in the open-river season; 

(13) with small appropriations work up to this time has been piece¬ 
meal, has been executed with dredges so small as to be uneconomical 
in every way, and without suitable provisions for safe disposal of 
dredge spoil; (14) if deep excavation were undertaken, large dredges 
could work, and cheaper prices per yard might make the cost of a 
deep channel less than the comparison of yards to be removed would 
indicate. 

10. Economics of the 'problem .—^The wording of the act requires 
executive recommendation both as to the depth to be attained and the 
length of river to be improved; and these must be adopted before a 
logical decision can be reached as to worthiness or unworthiness. 
The act fails to indicate whether the same depth shall be provided 
for the uppeP part as for the lower; a simple recommendation to deepen 
Newburyport Bar and do no work elsewhere would apparently be a 
full compliance with the act. Successive examinations and surveys 
indicate that a slight increase of depth is not economical. Tip to 
some point not yet determined the benefits of increased depth in¬ 
crease more rapidly than cost. Seven feet to Haverhill is seen to be 
too small; 12 feet was reported in 1905 as too small to confer benefits 
commensurate with the cost; in 1907 14 feet was reported to be 
worth $890,000 by the local engineer officer, but not by higher au¬ 
thorities. 

To secure and maintain depths on Newburyport outer bar greater 
than now exist involves the correct solution of the problem of im¬ 
proving an ocean channel across a sandy bar composed of easily 
moved sand, at the mouth of a fresh-water river of great variation in 
discharge, flowing through a sand-choked estuary of several miles 
length. Present depths on this bar appear to be sufficient for any 
commerce likely to develop, and to be successfully maintained by 
the present jetties; to secure greater depths would require their ex¬ 
tension to a more or less indefinite extent, with considerable doubt 
as to ultimate results. It is recommended, therefore, that the present 
depths on the bar be adopted as the maximum limit for the improve¬ 
ment of the estuary and river above. The present bar admits 
steamers and barges of IT feet draft at high tide. After passing over 
the bar the channel must be of a depth to permit such barges to reach 
a point of safe anchorage on the same tide on which they passed the 
bar. From that point upstream convenience demands 17 feet draft 
in the channel at low tide, but existing commerce shows that naviga¬ 
tion can persist here even up to drafts nearly equaling the depths 
available at high tide, because the progress of the tidal Avave up the 
Merrimack KiA^er is not far different from that at which tugs can tow 
barges. If 17 feet draft at mean low Avater be adopted for the in¬ 
side channel, it would provide uninterrupted navigation for the 
deepest barges or steamers that can now enter over the bar. 


MERPilMACK RIVEE^ MASS. AITD N. H. 


39 


In case the present jetties eventually secure depths over the bar 
even as g:reat as 21 or 22 feet, a low-water channel accommodating 
iT-foot-draft vessels in the bay and river would permit the deepest 
vessels that could then enter to proceed “on the tide” as^far up¬ 
stream as the tidal range remained as great as 4 or 5 feet. For a 
decision as to worthiness or unworthiness, it seems wise to adopt for 
the tidal part of the stream a channel which at mean low water 
would have a minimum width of 200 feet and a minimum depth of 
18 feet, such width and depth being considered suitable for boats of 
a maximum draft of 17 feet, for which the channel is designed. 
Tidal oscillation now ceases at Mitchells Falls, but prior studies in¬ 
dicate that resort to slack-water navigation may be necessary several 
miles below that point on account of the cost of excavation. The 
$890,000 estimate corresponds with a depth in open channel of 14 
feet to Tjions Mouth and 14 feet slack water above to Haverhill, the 
level of the pool being so selected as to avoid interference with the 
tailraces at Lawrence, and the dam being of the movable type to 
give greater assurance against excessive backwater in time of fresh¬ 
ets, As the pool level can not be raised higher than in the 14-foot 
project, the adoption of 17 feet draft, using a dam at Lions Mouth, 
would involve excaA^ation in excess of the 14-foot project wherever 
that project did not provide excess depths; for instance, in the upper 
portion of the pool formed b}^ the dam at Lions Mouth and for a 
considerable portion of the tidal section beloAV that dam. From 
data now aA^ailable exact estimates can not be made for either por¬ 
tion, as the character of material to be removed can only be deter¬ 
mined liA^ boring sufficiently to deA^elop the amount of rock in place. 
The selection of Lions Mouth as the upper limit of an open dredged 
channel for A^essels of 17-foot draft is subject to considerable doubt, 
hoAveA^er. That depth Avill admit A^essels of much greater tonnage 
than the 14-foot project, and below Lions Mouth there is some very 
crooked and SAvift river, hard to negotiate with such large craft 
unless it be included in the pool of a dam farther downstream. By 
statute Haverhill marks the upper limit of the 14-foot channel, and 
by calling for a new survey extending higher up the river Congress 
has apparently approA^ed the finding of the War Department that 
14 feet to PlaA-erhill is not Avorth $890,000, and called for further 
study of the general question and cost and value of deep Avater in 
the Merrimack Valley, including LaAvrence and LoAvell in the 
problem. 

The folloAving discussion is based on the official figures for 1910, 
Amuched for by the Massachusetts Bureau of Statistics and filed in 
the statehouse in Boston: 

(a) Newhuryport as upper limit of improvement for 17 feet 
draft .—Newburyport is credited with 53 manufacturing establish¬ 
ments, with aggregate capital of $4,876,477, using annually $3,951,983 
Avorth of stock, paying annually $1,581,543 to 3,156 people, and pro¬ 
ducing $7,002,724 value of product. The necessary depth now exists 
on the bar, and a moderate amount of rock removal and dredging in 
the channel up to the highway bridge would give 17 feet draft at 
mean low water. Assuming that a survey does not develop excessive 
rock areas, it would seem that this work will be so comparatively 
inexpensive that it can be reported as Avorthy of being done^by the 


40 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


United States on condition that the State or municipality expend an 
equal sum in deepening the water between the United States channel 
and the wharves and in providing a suitable public terminal open to 
all water carriers on equal terms and connected with the railroad 
for interchange of Avater-borne and railroad-borne traffic. 

(b) Haverhill as u^)'per limit of imjrrovement for 17 feet draft .— 
Haverhill and Newburyport both gain by such a project. Together 
they are credited with 378 manufacturing establishments, Avith an 
aggregate capital of $19,375,039, using annually $26,140,911 worth 
of stock, paying annually $8,757,425 Avages to 15,342 employees, and 
producing values amounting to $42,653,554. For this portion of 
river Ave have as a guide the implied congressional decision that a 
14-foot channel is not Avorth $890,000. In his book on harbors, 
Stevenson has stated that in a harbor or river the commercial value 
of a channel varies as the cube of the depth, provided there is com¬ 
merce available to utilize the depth. This is rational, as the cargoes 
carried by ocean vessels vary appii'oximately with the cube of their 
draft, the general shape of such vessels being reasonably uniform. 
Seventeen feet draft will proAude for ocean-going steamers and 
barges, and, assuming SteA^enson’s rule as a general guide, the 17- 
foot channel Avould be Avorth 1.8 times as much as the 14-foot. A 
channel to Haverhill costing $1,600,000 and providing for A^essels 
draAving 17 feet Avould then stand on a par AA^th the 14-foot channel 
costing $890,000, Avhich did not appeal to Congress as a Avise invest¬ 
ment of public funds. 

In the report of January 15, 1896, a 12-foot channel to Haverhill 
was, in round numbers, estimated to invoh’e 1,300,000 cubic yards 
of dredging and 35,000 cubic yards of rock excavation. The dredg¬ 
ing Avas estimated at 65 cents a yard, the rock excavation at $15 a 
yard. The total cost, in round numbers, Avas put at $1,500,000. The 
dredge price is too high for dredging a deep channel Avith powerful 
dredges. The rock price is not questioned, but the quantities of 
excavation are evidently so much greater for 17-foot draft than 
for 12 feet that no 17-foot dredged channel can probably be proAuded 
to HaA^erhill for less than $1,600,000, the sum above indicated as a 
higher limit based on past congressional action. This plainly indi¬ 
cates that State or municipal cooperation must be a condition prece¬ 
dent to any work by the United States. In many cases in Massa¬ 
chusetts the State has already guaranteed the maintenance of chan¬ 
nels provided by the United States. It Avould then seem not unrea¬ 
sonable to assume that if the State would guarantee maintenance of 
17-foot draft to Haverhill at mean Ioav Avater, and Avould contribute 
half the cost of the original improvement, the United States might 
be justified in putting not to exceed $800,000 into a 17-foot-draft chan¬ 
nel to Haverhill if a survey should indicate that such a channel could 
be provided for $1,600,000. This vieAv is influenced by the fact that, 
in vieAV of the changes in dimensions of modern steamers and 
barges, a 17-foot channel is much better adapted to existing commer¬ 
cial conditions than a 14-foot channel, and hence has in reality 
more commercial value than the Stevenson rule of the cubes of the 
depths would indicate. The 14-foot project, using slack-water navi- 
gation above Lions Mouth, was estimated at $890,000. It is possible 
that by dredging an additional 3 feet could be provided for the 


MEKRIMACK EIVER^ MASS. AND N. 11. 41 

$710,000 remaining after deducting the cost of the dam, etc., from 
the assumed $1,600,000 investment of State and United States, but 
large dredges could not work above the dam till the latter had 
created the pool, and small dredges are most uneconomical in the 
hardpan and bowlders which form the bed of the river. It seems 
a reasonably open question whether open-channel navigation up 
to Haverhill would not in the long run be really the most economical 
to create and maintain. The above is sufficient to show that with¬ 
out a full and complete survey and borings in the bed of the river 
from the mouth up no fair report on the worthiness or unworthiness 
of a channel permitting vessels drawing IT feet to reach Haverhill 
can be made. 

(c) Laiorence as upper' limit of improvement for 17 feet draft .— 
Lawrence, Haverhill, and Newbury port, all three, gain by such a 
project. Together they are credited with 507 manufacturing estab¬ 
lishments, with an aggregate capital of $99,032,610, using annually 
$67,880,338 worth of stock, paying annually $20,936,091 in wages to 
43,325 employees, and producing values amounting to $112,228,255. 
Above Haverhill the tide ebbs and flows as far as Mitchells Falls, but 
it seems probable that the cheapest and safest way to reach Lawrence 
is by a canal along the south bank of the river, carrying the level of 
the pool above the Lawrence Ham dowm as far as Ward Hill, wdiich 
such a canal leaves on its northern side, and then locking dowm into 
the river proper about a mile above Flaverhill. The State Merrimack 
Valley AVaterw\ay Board kindly made for this office an instrumental 
reconnoissance of this canal route, and there seems little doubt that 
it is cheaper than attempting channel excavation in the bed of the 
river. Slack-w^ater navigation is out of the question in this reach 
without great injury to established water powers, upon wdiich the 
prosperity of this section of the State depends. If the suggested 
canal be constructed to connect wdth the Lawu^ence pool, all the legal 
questions suggested under the antecedent head, “ water power,” at 
once arise. The canal wmuld be about 6| miles long, and no exces¬ 
sive cuts or fills appear to be involved. If an estimate of $250,000 a 
mile be admitted as a minimum, the cost would be not less than the 
cost of a 17-foot draft channel to Haverhill. Such a canal would 
open up to ocean vessels not only Lawn-ence but also the pool above 
the dam to within 2 or 3 miles of Lowell, so that one large coal¬ 
receiving plant could be established to supply by auto truck the needs 
of residents and smaller manufacturers in both Lowell and Lawrence. 
The larger mills in Low^ell could perhaps be served b}^ such a plant 
by electric freight service. The canal wmufd in reality reach Low^ell, 
and in considering the worthiness of the work Lovv^ell statistics 
should be included. NewUuryport, Haverhill, Lawrence, and Lowell 
all gain by such a 17-foot project. They are jointly credited with 
741 establishments, with an aggregate capital of $152,080,774, using 
annually $102,210,308 worth of stock, paying annually $34,389,169 
wages to 74,774 employees, and producing values amounting to $168,- 
840,409. To carry deep water closer than a couple of miles of Lowell 
would cost out of all proportion to the benefits to be derived, unless 
some canal route can be found to connect the Lawrence pool with 
the Lowell pool in a manner similar to the suggested Lawrence 
Canal, thus opening up the river for a number of miles above LowelL 


42 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND K. H. 


That is a section not proper to consider in this report, but such a 
plan possibly offers real advantages, and is now understood to be 
under study by the State Merrimack Valley Waterway Board. 

This fact leads to a suggestion that eliminates many of the legal 
difficulties raised under the head of water power. The cost of carry¬ 
ing 17 feet navigation above Haverhill and into the Lawrence pool 
can not well be less and is almost certainly greater than the cost to 
Haverhill, the head of tidal navigation, if a 17-foot draft open 
channel be dredged to that point. It would seem that if 17 feet is 
to be given above Haverhill it should be done by the State, which 
now, under State charters, has full control of the water-power situa¬ 
tion. Such a cooperation on the part of the State or municipalities 
would be equivalent in effect to contributing at least half the cost 
of making Lowell and Lawrence seaports and would probably justify 
the United States in doing the work up to Haverhill or perhaps to 1 
mile above Haverhill, where the State canal south of Ward Hill 
would enter the river. State control of such a canal would be advan¬ 
tageous in still another direction. The canal would develop a head 
probably 12 feet greater than is now available at the Lawrence Mills, 
and there might be possibilities of cooperation by the State and the 
Essex Co. looking to the utilizing of this added poAver, Avith less 
chance of legal complications than Avoidd result Avere the United 
States to build the canal. With a pledge from the State to complete a 
l7-foot draft canal from the Merrimack EiA^er 1 mile aboA^e Haverhill 
into the pool aboA^e the Lawrence dam and to operate the same free 
of tolls forever, it would then seem that the project of giAung 17 feet 
draft to Haverhill at the cost of the United States might be a Avorthy 
one to be undertaken by the United States, if a survey does not show 
too great cost. To show more clearly the recommendations made up 
to this point the folloAving table has been prepared; 


Comparison of data for 11-foot draft channel loith upper limits as stated below. 


Upper limit. 

Aggregate 

capital. 

Aggregate 

annual 

stock. 

Aggregate 

annual 

wages. 

Aggre¬ 

gate 

em¬ 

ployees. 

Aggregate 

annual 

product. 

Recommendation as to 
worthy or not. 

Ward Hill near 
Newburyport. 

$4,876,477 

$3,951,983 

$1,581,543 

3,156 

$7,002,724 

Worthy if State spend 
equal sum in terminal 
and connecting channel. 

Haverhill. 

19,375,039 

26,140,911 

8,757,425 

15,342 

42,653,554 

AVorthy if cost $1,600,000 
and State does half and 
maintains. 

Pool between Law¬ 
rence and Lowell. 

152,080, 774 

102,210,308 

34,389,169 

74,774 

168,840,409 

AA'^orthy if State create and 
operate canal to Law¬ 
rence Pool. 


In the above discussion nothing has been said as to possible reduc¬ 
tion in cost by providing a less depth in the upper reaches. No 
recommendation for such a reduction can be made; it simply transfers 
from Newburyport to some place higher up the river the point Avhere 
bulk cargoes of coal must be rehandled, and marks the limit of regu¬ 
lar steamer service to Boston and NeAV York. The cost of rehandling, 
the poor economy of small craft as compared Avith large, and the im¬ 
possibility of profitably running rUer steamers for passenger and 
package freight for the feAv miles of river betAveen LoAvell and the 
mouth seem to make such reduction of depth in upper reaches en- 


















MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AKD K. H. 


43 


tirely impractical. As a unit by itself the Merrimack Paver has no 
a]:)preciab]e value, its im]irovenient as part of a route from tlie cities 
on its banks to Boston, New York, and the South has much value. 
Whether that value is commensurate with the cost involved can only 
be known by an actual survey, with numerous borings and accurate 
levels. The possibilities seem so great that I report without hesita¬ 
tion that the river is Avorthy of the cost of such a survey up to Ward 
Hill, about a mile aboi^e Haverhill. Above that point the surveys 
should be at State expense, as they are to do the Avork if the above 
recommendations are adopted by Congress. 

11. Interested parties. —EA^ery effort has been made by this office 
and by the State Merrimack Valley Waterway Board to get into close 
touch AAuth all parties really interested in the improA^ement. A public 
hearing at LaAvrence, the most central of the cities Autally interested 
in the riA^er, Avas given by this office and AAas largely attended by a 
thoroughly interested and earnest body of representative men. The 
record of the stenographer’s notes forms x4ppendix B ^ to this report. 

Full typeAvritten records of the State board’s hearings Avere filed 
Auth this office by the board, and haA^e been carefully studied and con¬ 
sidered in formulating my AueAvs. A large number of letters haA^e 
been received. One of them, from the LoAvell Board of Trade, pre¬ 
sented at the hearing of October 4, 1912, states, among other things: 

The interest of the people of the Merrimack Valley, and especially Lowell, in 
the project of niakin,:? the river na\dpil)le is aroused when they realize that 
the cities of the Merrimack Valley are unable to compete with other manu¬ 
facturing: communities enjoying water-transportation facilities. * * * 

IMerrimack River turns more spindles than any other river in the world, * * * 
the IMerrimack River flows through the greatest textile center of the United 
States, * * 'j'Pe Board of Trade of Loaa'oH agree that the improvement of 
the Merrimack River will develop noAv territory, will enhance the value of land 
and real estate, will reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of transporta¬ 
tion, and will have a tendenc.v to decrease the cost of living and open new fields 
for the employment of capital and labor. 

Under date of September 19, 1912, Mr. J. O. Ellison, of Haverhill, 
writes: 

I haA^e been managing a steamer 170 feet long, 32 feet Avide, on a draft of 
lOi- feet, and have been coming to Haverhill for three years with very little 
trouble. * * * 

I have had exceptional interest shown by the business men of HaA’erhill and 
all other places of any importance along the Merrimack River, and also in¬ 
cluding Gloucester, Lynn, Salem, and Beverly, along the line of putting on boats 
for general freight to New York. 

Under date of September 7, 1912, Mr. Fred L. Atkinson, of New- 
buryport, Avrites: 

I am actively engaged noAv, and have been since 1884, in the Avholesale coal 
business * *. 

In about 188G I saAV moA^ed 22,000 tons of coal in one season from NeAvbury- 
port to LaAvrence and LoAvell by lighter over Mitchells Falls by the Pentucket 
Navigation Co. (so called, Hon. Benj. P. Butler and Hon. E. Moody Boynton), 
Avitli an expenditure of a feAV thousand dollars at the falls. 

Under date of-August 19, 1912, Mr. Levi L. H. Taylor, of Haver¬ 
hill, Avrites: 

What Ave Ava.nt is either a lock dam at Lions Mouth or river dredged so Ave 
can haA-e 18 feet at Ioav Avater. The barges of Standard Oil come to Haverhill; 
also tugs toAving coal scoavs, but onl.A^ on high Avater. 


1 Not printed. 






44 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


Under date of September 17, 1912, Mr. Henry C. Long writes: 

I will say that the State of ^Massachusetts and the Merrimack Valley stands 
i*eady to put up two millions of money to provide terminals and to connect them 
with the channels, if the United States Government will make a channel. I 
should say it—the channel—ought to be at least 300 feet wide and of sufficient 
depth for vessels drawing 20 feet; nothing less will he of .any value. * * * 

There is, perhaps, not another waterway in the world of equal length upon the 
hanks of which exists so much commerce waiting for a channel to use it. 

LTnder date of September 18, 1912, Mr. William J. Ward, propri¬ 
etor of the Merrimack Eiver Boat & Canoe Co., writes: 

The Merrimack is free of icc from the middle of March to the middle of 
December, a])proximately—a period of nisie months. Freshets are few and of 
short duration. Seven feet is the greatest rise above the dam at I.awrence 
recorded (Essex Co. records). [Apparently an error.] Average freshet rise, 
about 44 feet. Duration of freshet, three to six days. Usual numher of fresh¬ 
ets each year, one shortly before or after April 1. llarely have others in mid¬ 
summer and fall, * * * Current at fresliet time, 7 to 14 miles per hour, 

according to place—usually 7 or less. Merrimack is navigable its entire length 
from Lowell to the sea for a boat drawing G feet of water when a freshet is 
on, as has been proven (1886, startled Fawn). Gen. B. F. Butler, of Tjowell, 
ojierated an experimental freight line from Newburyport to TiOwell in early 
eighties or late seventies (reference, L. C, Prouty, 35 Marginal Street, Lowell). 
* ❖ * From the Lawrence Dam to a point east of Lowell called McMannons 

or Richardson Brook the depth is ample and free from obstructions, save a 
small submerged island on the north side 100 feet southwest of the head of 
Pine Island. * * From Richardson Brook west to the foot of Hunts 
Falls in Lowell is a middle ground similar to that between liawrence and 
Mitchells Falls. Through this a channel extends, partly obstructed by silt 
and sewage deposits. The distance of middle ground is about 14 miles. Thirty- 
five years ago a side-wheel steamboat navigated between liawrence and the 
foot of Hunts Falls in Lowell. Boat drew 2 or 3 feet of water. 

TTnder date of September 18, 1912, the Haverhill Box Board Co. 
writes: 

Our plant is located in the city of Llaverhill on the southern hank of the 
Merrimack River. It is located very close to the river, where we can practi¬ 
cally handle freight received by water as cheaply as if it came by rail. * * * 

With the channel as proposed, this coal could he delivered to our plant in the 
original barges or schooners in which it is shipped at the same or a slight in¬ 
crease in the cost of delivering it to Newburyport. Any extra charge for de¬ 
livering at Haverhill would he more than offset by the loss which we now 
have in transferring the coal at Newburyport and the damage to it by the 
extra handling. We, therefore, figure we would have a saving of 57 cents per 
ton on our annual consumption of 27,000 tons, which would amount to $15,390. 

On our rav/ materials this smallest annual saving which, we could hope for 
would be as follows: 

5.000 tons paper stock from New York, $1 per ton_$5, 000 

15,000 tons paper stock from Boston, $0.50 per ton_ 7, 500 

2,000 tons wood pulp, 83 per ton_ G. 000 

3,000 tons sulphite, $1.50 per ton_^ 1, 500 

1,000 tons rosin, alum, twine, starch, and miscellaneous supplies. $1.50 

per ton- 1. 500 


21, .500 

Out of a consumption of 48,000 tons of raw material we are only figuring on 
shipping one-half of it by water, t. ^ 

Regarding our finished product, estimating that we could.ship one-third of our 
output by water—and more than that amount is always shipped to the follow¬ 
ing terminals: 


5,000 tons to New York, at $1.50 per ton_^ $.5, 000 

10,000 tons to Boston, at $0.50 per ton_ 5, 000 


1 Computation incorrect. 


10, 000 












MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


45 


I might add that at the present tiim* it requires from 10 days to 
2 weeks to deliver paper to New York. With the above transportation our 
goods could be landed in Boston the day following and in New York on the 
-second day. You will realize the importance of these quick deliveries, as it 
often means the leverage by which business is secured. * * * 

In recapitulating the saving I have here given you would be as follows; 


Estimated saving: 

On coal-$15, ;190 

On raw materials_ 21, 500 

On tinished product_'_ lo’ 000 


Total- 46, 890 

As this plant is only one of the great number on the Merrimack River, I feel 
assured if the other manufacturers interested will make up such a statement 
you will find that the United States Government can afford to expend quite a 
handsome sum in deepening the IMerrimack River from Lowell to the sea. 

Under date of September 20, 1912, the Haverhill Board of Trade 
submitted a number of statistics, which are appended to this report, 
marked “Appendix C.” ^ 

Under date of December 19, 1912, Mr. Leslie K. Morse, president 
of the Merrimack Valley AVaterways Association (not the State 
board), ivrote me a letter suggesting the termination of the channel a 
short distance above Haverhill to connect with a proposed bridge and 
highway to give autotruck service to Lawrence. This letter is 
appended, marked “Appendix D.”^ 

Under date of January 28, 1913, the State Merrimack Valley 
Waterway Board submitted its report to the Massa^chusetts General 
Court and courteously supplied me with a copy, which is appended 
hereto, marked “Appendix E.” ^ 

12. Commerce .—The following statistics, compiled for the fiscal 
year 1912 for use in the Annual Keport of the Chief of Engineers for 
1913, have been collected from the freight-carrying interests on the 
river: 

Vessel classification. 


Class. 

Ameri¬ 

can. 

Total 
net regis¬ 
tered 
tonnage. 

Registered: 

Steamers. 

10 

1 

10 

5,550 

318 

3,572 

Sailing vessels. 

Barges. 

Total. 

21 

9,440 



Freight traffic. 


Articles. 


Coal. 


Oil. 


Total. 


Amount 

(cus¬ 

tomary 

units). 

Short 

tons. 

Valuation. 

Carried to— 

Average 
haul or 
distance 
carried. 

Rate per 
ton-mile. 

Tons. 

69,823 

69, 823 


fHaverhill. 

Miles. 

16 

2 $0.022 

i;728 

1,728 


Gro' eland. 

13 

.027 

4,487 

4, 487 

.$379, 706.65 

Merrimac. 

9 

.028 

5, 210 

5,210 

.\mesl)ury Ferry. 

5 

.020 

2,494 

2, 494 


Amesbiirv Mills. 

6 

.050 

94 

94 


West Newbury. 

10 

.035 

Barrels. 






17,062 

2,815 

59,000.00 

Haverhill. 

16 

.016 


86. 651 

438,706.65 j 





• Not printed. 


* There is also a 25 cents per ton transferring charge at Newburyport. 





















































46 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


13. Survey ,—Whether the creation of a channel 18 feet deep and 
200 feet wide, suitably widened at the bends, which will safely per¬ 
mit l7-foot draft vessels to navigate the river is practicable is largely 
a matter of cost. If the material can be removed by powerful 
dredges, without drilling and blasting, the cost may or may not be 
excessive, depending on the yardage, which can be ascertained only 
by an accurate hydrographic survey from the bar to the point oppo¬ 
site. Ward Hill, where it has been recommended above that the 
United States turn over the river to the State for improvement. If 
large quantities of rock are found by boring it may be necessary to 
combine dredging and slack-water navigation below Ward Hill; 
accurate and numerous borings are therefore unavoidable before any 
definite project or any approximation to the cost of such a channel is 
possible. While there are reliable maps of portions of the river there 
are long reaches for which no reliable data are available. It is in¬ 
tended to avoid duplicating work by using such known data as are 
available and supplementing them by new surveys. 

The question of cost must be determined v/ithin reasonable limits 
before it is known to what extent cooperation by the State should be 
asked; it seems, therefore, that the United States should make an 
accurate survey of the river up to Ward Hill, provided the State 
will undertake a similar survey for a canal from Ward Hill to 
connect with the pool above the Lawrence. Dam. It is understood 
that there is a considerable State appropriation now available for 
such a survey, and there is little doubt that the balance would be pro¬ 
vided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts if such provision was 
made a condition precedent to a survey u]) to Ward Hill b}^ the 
United States. By following this course cooperation by the State 
and the Federal Government would begin at the A^ery start, and there 
would be good ground for confidence that the local authorities were 
thoroughly in earnest, and that the improvement was worthy of being 
made by the State and the United States jointly. 

It is therefore recommended that an allotment for a United States 
survey of the Merrimack Kiver from Black Kocks Beacon up to 
Ward Hill, with a aucav to the creation of a channel 200 feet wide 
and 18 feet- deep at mean low Avater, suitably Avidened at the bends, 
be made; its expenditure to be conditional upon the proAusion by the 
State of sufficient funds for the making by competent State authority 
of an accurate survey for a canal to afford 18 feet depth and 200 feet 
width, suitably widened at the bends, connecting the pool above the 
Lawrence Dam with the channel of the Merrimack Eiver just beloAV 
Ward Hill. Under no conditions should the United States under¬ 
take to make a survey above Ward Hill, even if the State offers to 
defray the cost; for the legal questions as to State and Federal rela¬ 
tionships to water powers on that part of the riA^er are so invoh^ed 
that the whole matter of the extension above Ward Hill, survey as 
well as construction, operation, and maintenance of the canal, should 
be strictly the State’s contribution to the improvement of the river. 

Frederic V. Abbot, 
Colonel,, Corps of Engineers. 















» iBC;y ur 






V. 




^;,| ■ ^p‘ 




7 F'K^ .‘_^ j» . 


ra'ovjsfi^ 

'^,'S &- Vvai if UiU: bvt''«?4^ 

I 5 tfe^; ^ 













f-c*: 


ya^ -;>- r. ?>.3 


^JteiJift^nt Bt«Ue 
^ tiis^ vi^p4h<Bnri iPKyh „, 

k^ti^g Uiii tlii 

. ..... ^ 1^ 

'^i>, <: ^ > cS^.. 








t »* >1 


/ri- 


r •-.• 


- .’S^V *!<>•• ' -■■' •*" 


if-; --j 
.«2TSr>A.^9l 


Tv:4^ 







MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 

[First indorsement.] 


47 


Office of Division Engineer, 

Northeast Division, 

New Yorh^ N. Z., April 8, 1913. 
To Chief of Engineers, United States Army: 

1. Attention is invited to the inclosed copy of correspondence with 
the district officer. The change requested by the district officer in his 
indorsement has been made. It is my opinion that the project for 
the improvement of the Merrimack Kiver should include the deepen¬ 
ing of the channel of the bar at its mouth, and that the studies for 
this project should include whatever studies are necessary for a rec¬ 
ommendation for such deepening. 

2. Subject to the above, the recommendations of the district officer 
are concurred in. 

W. M. Black, 

Colonel.) Corps of Engineers. 

[Third indorsement.] 


Board of Engineers for Eivers and Harbors, 

May 20.) 1913. 

To Chief of Engineers, United States Army: 


1. From the facts presented herein, the board believes that the 
question of advisability in this case can be determined only after the 
results of a surve}^ have been made known, and it therefore concurs 
with the district officer and the division engineer in recommending 
the authorization of a survey of the Merrimack River from the 
mouth to Ward Hill, to be made under the condition that the State 
shall make an accurate survey and prepare a project, with estimate 
of cost, for a channel having a depth of 18 feet and suitable width 
from Ward Hill to Lowell. 

2. The board recommends that the survey to be made by the dis¬ 
trict officer shall include studies for a channel over the bar at the 
entrance to the river of suitable depth to accommodate a draft of IT 
feet at mean low water. 

For the board: 

Wm. T. Rossell, 

Colonel.) Corps of Engineers.) 

Senior Member of the Board. 


SURVEY OF MERRIMACK RIVER, LOWELL TO THE SEA. 

War Department, 

United States Engineer Office, 
Boston.) Mass..) November 10) 19H. 

From: The District Engineer Officer. 

To : The Chief of Engineers, United States Army. 

(Through the Division Engineer). 

Subject: Survey of Merrimack River, Mass. 

1. In compliance with instructions contained in your letter dated 
May 23, 1913, the following report is submitted on the survey of 



48 


MEREIMAOK BIVEB, MASS. AND N. H. 

Merrimack River, Mass., with a view to securing increased depth 
from Lowell to the sea or in any part of this section of the river. 

These instructions w^ere accompanied by the folloAving recom¬ 
mendations of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, 
dated May 20, 1913, which the Chief of Engineers directed be com¬ 
plied with: , 

1. From the facts presented herein, the board believes that the question 
of advisability in this case can be determined only after the results of a survey 
have been made known, and it therefore concurs with the district officer and 
the division engineer in recommending the authorization of a survey of the 
Merriiiiack River from tlie mouth to Ward Hill, to be made under the condition 
that the State shall make an accurate survey and prepare a project, with 
estimate of cost, for a channel having a depth of 18 feet and suitable wddth 
from Ward Hill to Lowell. 

2. The board recommends that the survey to be made by the district officer 
shall include studies for a channel over the bar at the entrance to the river 
of suitable depth to accommodate a draft of 17 feet at mean low water. 

2. In the preliminary examination report a survey of the river 
up to Ward Hill was recommended— 

with a view to the creation of a channel 200 feet wide and 18 feet deep at 
mean low water, * * * conditional upon the provision by the State of suffi¬ 

cient funds for the making by competent State authority of an accurate survey 
for a canal to afford 18 feet depth and 200 feet width, * * * connecting 

the pool above Lawrence dam with the channel of the Merrimack River just 
below Ward Hill. 

Assurance satisfactorv to the Secretary of War w^as o^iven bv tlie 
proper authorities of the Commonw^ealth that it would make the 
survey and prepare a project and estimate of cost of an 18-foot chan¬ 
nel of suitable width from Ward Hill to Low^ell. This survey on 
the part of the Commonwealth was conducted under the direction 
of the Merrimack Valley Waterway Board, whose report, printed as 
State Document No. 2169, January, 1914, is herewith.^ 

3. The route suggested in the preliminaiw examination report 
(p. 41) between Ward Hill and Lawrence was by canal along the 
south bank of the river, carrying the level of the pool above the 
laiwrence dam downstream as far as Ward Hill, which such a canal 
leaves on its northern side, and then’locking doAvn into the river 
proper about a mile above Haverhill. After investigating this route, 
however, the Merrimack Valley AVaterway Board reported that— 

The conclusion reached by the board was that, owing to the land damages, 
which would amount to m lai-ge sum, the cost of necessary bridges at various 
streets in North Andover and South Lawrence, the re-laying of sewers, water 
mains, and car tracks, the large amount of water which would be required 
in the canal, and particularly as such a canal would not, in the judgment of 
this board, best serve the business interests of Lawrence, a channel dredged in 
the river and canals constructed across Ward Hill and at the Lawrence dam 
would be a better solution of the problem. 

The project proposed by the Merrimack Valley Waterway Board 
is for a lock below AA^arcl Hill at the termination of the proposed 
United States channel, and a canal back of AVard Hill, connecting 
at the upstream end of Kimballs Island with a pool 12.71 feet above 
0.0 at Black Rocks Beacon; this pool being maintained by a dam 
above Mitchells Llpper Falls and below Kimballs Island, and ex¬ 
tending up to LaAvrence, where another lock Avould carry vessels 


’ Printed in part at the end of this docnnieut (see p. 14.“)). 




MEREIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


49 


into the pool of the existing Lawrence dam, which is to he deepened 
by dredging to carry 17 feet draft up to Hunts Falls, Lowell, about 
2 miles below the city proper. 

The^ State board estimated the cost of its project at $5,443,600, 
exclusive of land damages at Ward Hill, of the cost of removal of 
Broadway Bridge at Lawrence, and of the construction of a new 
bridge at that point, and of the cost of making certain changes in 
existing bridges betAveen Ward Hill and BroadAvay Bridge. 

4. As outlined in the preliminary examination report, the survey 
by the United States avos conducted Avith a AueAv to obtaining a tidal 
channel of 18 feet depth at mean low water from the sea to Ward 
PI ill: but the results of the survey, as shown by the estimate below, 
clearly indicate the cost for a tidal channel to be prohibitive. The 
survey included sounding the entire section of the riA^er from the bar 
at its mouth up to Ward Hill, numerous borings in the probable lo¬ 
cation of the proposed channel, and tide obseiwations in the section 
of the river from Haverhill to Ward Hill. 

5. The river in its present condition has a channel of naAugable 
Avidth and at least 13 feet deep at mean Ioav Avater across the bar and 
in to Black Eocks Beacon, a distance of about 1^ miles; at least 9 feet 
deep at mean low Avater, thence to the bridges at NeAvburyport, a dis¬ 
tance of about miles; at least 14 feet deep at mean low water, 
thence to a point locally known as the Ijions Mouth, a distance of 
about 3{ miles: and thence at least 7 feet deep at mean low Avater to 
the railroad bridge at HaAnrhill, a distance of about 13 miles. Above 
the railroad bridge the channel has a greatest continuous depth of 
about 4 feet at mean low water, is narrow and tortuous, is studded 
Avith many and large bowlders, and is not navigated. From the rail¬ 
road bridge to a junction with the proposed State channel at Ward 
Piill the distance is 2 miles. 

Throughout the stretch included in the survey the river has but one 
tributary of navigable proportions, Powoav Elver, which enters the 
IVIerrimack from the north at a point about 3J miles aboA^e NeAvbury- 
port. Powow Elver has a channel 12 feet deep at mean high water or 
about 5 feet at mean low Avater, is about If miles long, and at its 
upper end are located the wharves of Amesbury. 

Excavation would be necessary in 204 miles of the 224 miles of 
channel betAveen the bar and Ward PTill to secure a tidal channel 18 
feet deep at mean Ioav water. The material as developed by the bor¬ 
ings proved in the main to be sand and graA^el with occasional clay. 
Eocky formation aboA^e 18 feet depth Avas located at 34 places along 
the river bed, and in such quantity as to be the cause of a very large 
part of the cost of a tidal channel. The position and extent of these 
rocky areas is shoAvn upon the plans. In the reaches of the riA^er 
betAA^een Haverhill and the sea the greater masses of rock are found 
at Deer Island, Merrimacport, Eocks Bridge, Curriers Shoal, and 
along the waterfront of Haverhill. 

AboA^e HaA^erhill to Ward Hill large quantities of rock were lo¬ 
cated and in the upper 3,500 feet-of the channel around the base of 
Ward Hill and passing through Hazeltine Eapids the underlying 
rock becomes practically continuous. The rock cut here is so large 
that it has been given separate consideration in the estimates on the 


H. Doc. 1813,64-2-4 



50 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


supposition that it could be removed under cover of cofferdams in¬ 
stead of by the usual method of subaqueous rock excavation. 

G. The upper part of the river is subject to erratic fluctuations of 
the Avater surface at times of loAv-A\^ater stages, due to the retention 
of practically all floAv of the river behind the dam of the Essex Co. 
at Lawrence except such quantity as passes through the mills when 
running. 

Observations taken in 1914 give a mean Ioav Avater determination 
at Haverhill Bridge of 0.74 foot loAver than that of 1905, but the Ioav- 
est tide obseiwed Avas but 0.12 foot loAver than the loAvest of the ob- 
serA ations of 1905. To insure a least depth of 18 feet in the upper 
section of the channel at loAv-Avater stages of the river, it appears 
necessary to adopt this loAvest observed level, Avhich is 1.87 feet beloAA^. 
local mean Ioav Avater of 1905 at Haverhill Bridge and 2.27 feet above 
0.0 at Black Rocks beacon, as the plane of reference in the upper 
part of the riA^er, and the estimates are based on a channel 18 feet 
deep below this plane. In the lower part of the river Avhere the tidal 
influence is greater the bottom is made parallel to the mean Ioav- 
Avater slope. 

7. Opposite the loAver end of the Avater front at NeAvburyport the 
channel is obstructed by extensive rock formation locally knoAvn as 
GangAvay Rocks. A channel 9 feet deep at mean Ioav Avater has been 
obtained here by cutting doAvn these ledges, but it Avas knoAvn that 
the cost of a further increase in depth to 18 feet Avould be so great 
that search Avas made by boring for a more faAmrable location for the 
18-foot channel. It Avas found practicable to SAving the proposed 
channel about 700 feet south around this ledge area, avoiding practi¬ 
cally all ledge excavation. The advantages of this change are the 
saving of about $57,000 in cost of the channel, and in locating it 
for an additional length of about 2,000 feet close along the Avater 
front of NeAvburyport, giAung deep Avater close to the Avharves for 
that length Avhich Avould not be obtained if the location of the former 
channel Avas adhered to. The only disadvantage of the change is 
the introduction of one additional bend in the^ channel. This change 
has been adopted in the estimates. 

8. The estimate of cost of a tidal channel from Black Rocks 
Beacon to Ward Hill is as folloAvs: 


llredgin^ 8.808,457 cubic yards of sand, gravel, and clay, at 

40 cents-.83, 523, 382. 80 

Hock excavation, AVard Hill section, 312,208 cubic yards, at $4_ 1,248,832.00 

Rock excavation, below AVard Hill section, 378,798 cubic vards, 

at $8_I_ 3, 030. 384. 00 

Bowlder excavation, below AAkard Hill section, r)2,.332 cubic yards, 
at $2.50_I_ 155,830.00 


7, 958, 428. 80 

Engineering and contingencies_ 541, 571. 20 


Total-._ 8.500,000.00 


9. The project for a tidal channel Avas found so costly that the 
question of obtaining the required depth by the means of a dam was 
then considered. In 1908 Col. Edw. Burr submitted a project of 
this nature with a view to providing by lock and dam a channel 14 
feet deep from the mouth of the rh^er to the railroad bridge at Haver¬ 
hill. (H. Doc. No. 2, 61st Cong., 1st sess.) His conclusions were 









MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


51 


that this could be accomplished by a lock and dam located a short 
distance above the Lions Mouth; the level of the pool above the dam 
to be 11.14 feet above 0.0 at Black Bocks Beacon; and that a pool at 
this level would not injuriously alFect the water power of the Essex 
Co., at Lawrence, Mass., nor cause excessive llowage damage along the 
banks of the river. The engineers of the Merrimack Valley Water¬ 
way Board, who proposed a dam above Mitchells Falls to maintain 
a pool having a surface level of 12.71 feet above 0.0 at Black Bocks 
Beacon, adopted this level, having in consideration noninterference 
with the water power at Lawrence. If the water power at Lawrence 
will not be interfered with by this dam it appears practicable to raise 
the pool level at the proposed.dam at Lions Mouth to elevation 12.71 
feet adopted by the State engineers for their pool and maintain a 
})ractically level pool in the stretch of river between Lions Mouth and 
Mitchells Falls. If this be done the lock and dam proposed by the 
Merrimack Valley Waterway Board to pass around Mitchells Falls, 
and estimated to cost $1,117,000, would be eliminated, and the work 
of the State in this locality would be reduced to an open cut of suit¬ 
able dimensions either through Mitchells Falls or by route of the 
cut-off canal at present proposed in connection with their plan of lock 
and dam. 

10. The estimate adopting a dam at Lions Mouth to maintain a pool 
at grade 12.71 feet above 0.0 at Black Bocks Beacon is as follows: 


Tidal cliaiinel from Black Rocks Beacon to the dam: 

Dredging 1,004,524 cubic yards, at 40 cents_ 

Rock excavation, 19,833 cubic yards, at $8_ 


$425, 809. 00 
158, 004. 00 


.584, 473. 00 

Excavation above dam to Ward Hill: 

Dredging 945,709 cubic yards, at 40 cents_$378, 283. 00 

Rock excavation. Ward Hill section, 72,298 cubic 

yards, at $4_ 289, 192, 00 

Rock excavation, below AVard Hill section, 3,405 

cubic yards, at $8_ 27, 240. 00 

- 094, 715. 60 


Dam at Lions Mouth: 

Foundation of dam_ 

1,100 lineal-foot movable dam 
Lock, etc_,_ 


1, 279,189. 20 


350, 000. 00 
412, 500. 00 
487, 500. 00 

- 1, 250, 000. 00 


2, .529,189. 20 

Engineering and contingencies- 220, 810. 80 

Total_ 2, 7.50, 000. 00 


For the purposes of estimate, the size of lock adopted by the 
State, 45 by 350 feet, with 18 feet depfh on the miter sill, has been 
used; but, in my opinion, longer and wider locks, with deeper water 
on the sill, should be provided at the start if the improvement were 
undertaken. 

11. The question of locating the proposed dam beloAV the mouth of 
Powow Biver in order that Amesbury might be benefited by the in¬ 
crease in depth of channel of the Powow Biver was also considered. 
A suitable location for a lock and dam can be found below De6r 
Island bridge by utilizing the passages between tlie islands, about 3 


















52 MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 

miles below, and would result in some reduction of cost as applying 
only to the problem of obtaining 18 feet depth of water; but dikes 
would be necessary to hold the pool level in the vicinity of the 
islands below Deer Island bridge, and the flowage damages would 
be greatly increased by this change in location of the dam. At Ames- 
buiy, at the head of navigation in Powow Eiver, a water power of 
about 240 horsepower would be seriously interfered with, and prac¬ 
tically all the wharves of the town and the basements of several in¬ 
dustrial plants would be submerged. At the mouth of the Powow 
River two coal wharves would be submerged, and on the left bank 
of the Merrimack River for about three-fourths of a mile above and 
three-fourths of a mile below the mouth of Powow River flowage 
would occur to a limited extent in a thickly settled section. This 
flowage would occur with pool level either at 11.14 or 12.71 feet 
above 0.0 at Black Rocks Beacon. For the reasons above stated and 
because the water front of South Amesbury (Salisbury Point) on 
the banks of the Merrimack is only about 1 mile distant by highway 
from Amesbury, the construction of a dam below the mouth of 
Powow River is considered inadvisable. 

12. The channel lines laid down on the accompanying plans, in 
seven sheets, locate a channel 200 feet wide, in straight sections, 
suitably widened at the bends, 18 feet deep at mean low water, con¬ 
sidered suitable for barges of IT feet draft. This location, while 
primarily laid down for the tidal channel, is also the most ad¬ 
vantageous location for a channel in the pool of the dam. 

13. A serious objection to the use of a dam in the improvement of 
the river is its probable effect on the maintenance of the channel 
over the bar at the mouth of the river. The river is a tidal stream 
up to the foot of Mitchells Upper Falls, and a dam located at Lions 
Mouth would exclude the tide for about two-thirds in length of this 
tidal section of the river. 

Approximate computation, based on such information as is avail¬ 
able shows the entire tidal prism of the river above the gorge at 
Plum Island to be 1,090,000,000 cubic feet, and that of the section 
above the dam at Lions Mouth to be 377,000,000 cubic feet; or it 
may be said that a dam at Lions Mouth cutting off two-thirds of the 
length of the tidal riA^er Avill reduce the tidal prism one-third. This 
reduction of tidal prism Avill be of advantage in the upper part of 
the remaining tidal channel, as the current will be reduced in velocity 
at several difficult bends, particularly in the vicinity of Deer Island 
Bridge, where tidewater will be reduced to about one-fifth of the 
(luantity that passes at present. Its effect, hoAvever, on the improA^e- 
inent of the bar at the moutli of the river Avill be distinctly detri¬ 
mental and Avill probably necessitate modification of the present 
project for improvement of Newburyport Harbor and possibly peri¬ 
odical dredging to compensate for the loss of scouring power. 

14. The jetties noAv maintain about 13 feet depth at mean Ioav Avater, 
Avith promise that recent additions to the north jetty Avill produce more 
depth Avhen conditions become permanent. While the tidal scour is 
sloAv and partial in its effect, this can probably be made reasonably 
certain and be more promptly accomplished by the use of a pump 
dredge, in the first place cutting the bar doAvn to a depth of about 
24 feet. This extra depth of 6 feet Avould in the end be an economy. 


MERKIMACK EIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


53 


as it would enable a larger and more economical dredge to be used 
for maintenance of the bar; it would by the greater depth reduce the 
wave action on the bottom, and would also concentrate the flow of 
the tide better in the channel and so increase the maintenance effect 
of the currents. 

Below Black Bocks Beacon over the bar to deep water the im¬ 
provement under consideration falls within the project of improve¬ 
ment of Newburyport Harbor by jetties at the mouth of the river. 

In 1880, before tlie construction of jetties was commenced, the 18- 
foot curves inside and outside of the bar were 4,300 feet apart. 

In 1901 a continuous 18-foot channel with least width of 200 feet 
extended from the gorge between Plum Island and Salisbury Beach 
seaward for 300 feet beyond the present seaward end of the jetties, 
and the 18-foot contours inside and outside of the bar were 1,200 
feet apart. 

In 1909 the 18-foot curves inside and outside of the bar were 1,000 
feet apart, and inside of the north jetty a break 600 feet long existed 
in the 18-foot depth. 

The channel inside of the jetties in both 1901 and 1909 swept from 
the gorge through a wide curve to the north around a shoal which 
ran out northeasterly from the north end of Plum Island. This 
swing first developed in 1891 and continued through to 1909. 

In 1909 the south jetty had been completed excepting about 30 
feet in length of its outer 1,000 feet of parallel arm; the north jetty 
was completed practically out to the point of parallelism with the 
south jetty. In 1910 extension of the north jetty was commenced, 
and early in 1912 a core of the work up to full grade had been 
completed. In 1913-14 this core was completed to full cross section. 

15. Changes for the better in general conditions of the work fol¬ 
lowed on the progress of extension of this jetty. In 1914 the 18-foot 
contours inside and outside of the bar were 525 feet apart, but inside 
the north jetty the same interruption of the 18-foot contour existed 
as in 1909, the break being 800 feet long. But the most pronounced 
improvement in conditions is in the shifting of the shoal extending 
northeast from Plum Island, which in the 6-foot contour has swung 
825 feet south and apparently is still in motion. On a 12-foot depth 
the channel has brcjken through and maintained itself parallel to the 
6-foot change, but at this depth the channel following the swing of 
deeper water to the northeast is the better as yet. 

16. It is thus shown that the discharge of the river has maintained 
from 1901 to 1906 a channel 18 feet deep from the gorge outward 
past the ends of the jetties, but interrupted between that point and 
the ocean by a bar with only 13 feet depth at mean low water, and 
that the completion of the parallel arms has developed a decided 
tendency for the channel to straighten into a general east and west 
course, eliminate the curve inside of the jetties, and scour off the 
shoal extending northeast from Plum Island; also that the distance 
between the 18-foot contours inside and outside of the bar is rapidly 
diminishing. Current observations show that on the ebb tide the 
discharge from the main channel of the river on the north and from 
over the extensive flats on the south meet at the gorge between Plum 
Island and Salisbury Beach and that the resultant is a current set¬ 
ting northeasterly, accounting for the curved sweep to the northeast 


54 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


of that part of the channel between the gorge and the north jetty. 
Only in the last hour of ebb tide, when the discharge from the flats 
on the south is nearly exhausted, does the resultant current from the 
gorge flow directly eastward in line with the parallel arms of the 
jetties. 

The tendency toward a straightening and deepening of the chan¬ 
nel at the mouth of the river as outlined above, as a result of the 
recent extension of the north jetty, indicates that this portion of the 
improvement might well be left to await the effect of such extension 
wdiile the other wmrks w^ere being built. Should the jetty improve¬ 
ment prove insufficient in its final effect, resort may be had to dredg¬ 
ing the bar, Avhich was authorized by the act of January 25, 1910, 
as part of the project for New^buryport Harbor, under which project 
suitable action may be taken to accomplish the required depth. 

17. Another serious question to be considered is the effect of a dam 
in a river so polluted with sewage as this stream is at the present 
time, receiving, as it does, the sewage of many large cities and towms 
wdiich line its banks. The pondage of this sew^age during low- 
w^ater stages in the summer season might be a serious menace to the 
public health, particularly during periods when the mills at Law^- 
rence are shut down Saturdays and Sundays, when the entire flow^ 
of t]ie river is stopped. (See preliminary examination report.) 

18. The preliminai’v examination report suggested, and the allot¬ 
ment for the survey w^as based on, a physical division of the im¬ 
provement betw^een the CommonW'ealth and the United States—the 
latter to make the improvement up to Ward Hill and the Common- 
w’ealth from tliere to Lowell. For the reasons stated in said report, 
this division should be adhered to if the improvement of any part 
of the river is to be undertaken by the United States. As showm by 
the estimates, this means that the United States should bear approx¬ 
imately $2,750,000 of the cost and the Commonw^ea 1th or local inter¬ 
ests $4,326,600, plus all costs of land damages, including flovrage 
rights, bridge removal and reconstruction at Lawrence, terminals, 
etc. The construction of a dam at Lions Mouth wmuld relieve the 
Commonwealth of the necessity for a dam at Mitchells Falls and 
lock at Ward Hill, wdiich the Merrimack Valley Waterw^ay Board 
estimated would cost $1,117,000. 

19. The conclusions and recommendations of the Merrimack Val¬ 
ley Waterway Board, as set forth in its report, Avere in part: 

(//) Tli-'t the Alerriiiau- River should re iiuproved ;iiul opened to ii-ivi.irntioii 
by providiiis: a ehannel IS feet deep at mean low water extending from the 
sea to Ward Hill, about 1 mile above Haverhill ,and by providing a depth of 
IS feet by means of a ebannel, and by building canals and locks from Ward 
Hill to Hunts Falls, at Lowell. 

(?>) That the Federal Government carry into effect a project providing for 
a channel IS feet deep at mean low water from the sea to Ward Hill, about 
1 mile above Haverhill, and that the Commonwealth of IMassachusetts coop¬ 
erate with the E^ederal Government in carrying such project into effect, the 
basis, form, and method of cooperation to be agreed upon after all facts and 
data have been obtained. 

(c) That the Commonwealth of Massachusetts adopt and carry into effect the 
l)roject prepared by the IMerrimac Valley Waterway Board for the improve- 
luent of the Merrimac River from Ward Hill, about 1 mile above Haverhill, to 
Hunts Falls, at Lowell, substantially as outlined in this report, namely, by exca¬ 
vating a channel of adequate width and IS feet deep in the river and by build¬ 
ing locks and canals to provide a depth of 18 feet, and that the Federal Govern- 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


55 


nieiit cooperate with the Coiinoonwealth of :Massachiisetts in carrying such 
project into effect, and that the basis, form, and method of cooperation in 
respect to the State’s project he agreed upon at the same time as agreed upon in 
respect to the Federal Goveimment’s project for.improvement of the river as far 
as Ward Hill. 

* * ***:!! ^; 

{(j) That an appropriation of $1,0(K),000 be made by the legislature for the 
purpose of improving the Merrimac Itiver and, as evidence of agreement by the 
Commonwealth to a policy of cooperation with the Federal Government "with 
respect thereto, the expenditure of this appropriation to be conditioned upon 
the passage by Congress of appropriations for the same purpose. 

In pursuance of these conclusions and recommendations the fol¬ 
lowing act was passed bv the Legislature of Massachusetts on June 
!>(), 1914 (ch. 691, 1914) :* 


AX ACT To provide for the improvement of the Merrimac River, 


Be it enacted, etc., as foUoins: 

Section 1. Under the direction of the board of harbor and land commissioners 
a sum not exceeding $1,000,000 may be expended for the improvement for navi¬ 
gation of the Merrimac liiver from the sea to Hunts Falls at Lowell by the 
construction of a channel therein: Provided, That no part of said sum shall be 
available or expended until the Congress of the United States shall approve a 
project and make an appropriation therefor to improve that part of said river 
from the sea to a point opposite Wards Hill, about one mile above Haverhill, 
so that a continuous channel will be provided throughout this part of said river 
not less than eighteen feet deep at mean low water and of adequate width. 

Sec. 2. To meet the expenses that may be incurred under the provisions of 
this act the treasurer and receiver general is hereby authorized, with the ap¬ 
proval of the governor and council, to issue bonds, scrip, or certificates of indebt¬ 
edness to an amount not exceeding $1,000,000, for a term not exceeding forty 
years, to be in such form, to bear such rate of interest, and to be issued in 
such amounts from time to time as the treasurer and receiver general, with the 
approval of the governor and council, shall determine. 

Sec. 3. This act shall take effect upon its passage. 

Approved, June 20, 1914, 

20. The report of the Merrimack Valley Waterway Board gives the 
following summary of statistics concerning the cities and towns 
along Merrimack Kiver: 


Total population_ 307, 540 

Total value of as.sessed estates, Apr. 1, 1913_-$262, 710, 204 

Total numl)er of establishments_ 814 

Total capital invested_$188,152, 336 

This represents about 53.1 per cent of the capital invested in 
metropolitan Boston (including Boston and 39 other cities and 
towns) and about 14.4 per cent of that invested in the whole 
State. 

Total value of stock and material used---$116,870,360 


This represents about 36.5 p.er cent of that of metropolitan 
Boston and about 12.6 per cent of that of the whole State. 


Total amount of wages paid during the year- $42, 004. 4o9 

Total number of wage earners employed during year- 85, 069 

Total value of product_^-$196, 59.>, 077 


Tin's repi-esents a1)Out 36.1 per cent of the total value of prod¬ 
uct of metropolitan Boston and about 12.4 tier cent ot that ot 
the whole State. 


The total coal consumption of these cities and towns exceeds 1.200,000 tons, 
aboiir 135,0;)0 tons of which is now received l)y water. In the opinion of 
the manufacturei*s along the river an adequate water route for the receipt of 


(ml V 










56 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 

this commodity would effect a saving in freight rates of from 50 cents to $1 a 
ton, in addition to the saving in transportation charges on general merchandise, 
raw material, and maiuifactiired product. 

Supplementing these sta-tistics, Mr. Andrew B. Sutherland, of 
Lawrence, a member of the former Merrimack Valley M^aterway 
Board, writes this office, under date of July 31, IDIJ, as follows: 

As you will soon complete borings on the Merrimack River, and as your 
report to Washington^must necessarily follow, it is the hope of the people of 
this valley that you Vill report favorably to the Federal Government to recom¬ 
mend the work providing an 18-foot channel from the mouth of the river to 
Lowell, seeing that the State has made a liberal contribution of $1,000,000, 
and the cities on tbiO banks of the river have guaranteed to construct terminals 
open to everyone on equal terms and not controlled by the railroad. In view 
of these facts it would seem that we ought to have a favorable report, and 
especially when the following schedule of trallic is considered. We have in 
the valley, between the New Hampshire line and the sea, in the cities and 
towns adjoining the river, a total population of 307,540. The value of raw 
material brought in to be manufactured is $110,870,300, which turned out as a 
finished product amounts to $190,595,077, making a grand total of what you 
might term of imports and exports to the value of $313,405,437. That is not 
including coal, of which we consume 1,200,000 tons; neither does it include 
foodstuffs, merchandise, etc., but simply the value of the raw materials brought 
in and the manufactured products that go out. Thus you will see that the 
Merrimack Valley is one of the greatest manufacturing sections in the United 
States. 

I am informed by the gas company of Lawrence that it costs them $1.15 
more per ton for coal than it does the gas companies of Salem and Lynn. The 
Lawrence Gas Co. uses 36,000 tons annually. Now, the total amount of coal 
used in Lawrence and Lowell is in excess of 1,000,000 tons, which would be a 
saving on that commodity of at least 75 cents per ton and perhaps $1; that 
wouhl mean a saving annually on one commodity from $750,000 to $1,000,000, 
and that does not take into consideration the other cities and towns on the 
river. If $750,000 to $1,000,000 can be saved on coal alone the saving on cot¬ 
ton, wool, iron, lumber, hides, and other commodities used for manufacturing 
purposes would be very important. When the Merrimack Valley Waterway 
Board made their preliminary report, they reported that at least $1,000,000 a 
year could be saved; but no consideration was made of the amount of goods 
that wo\ild go out by water, so that it is safe to say that the saving would be 
nearer two million than one million annually. I understand the LTnited States 
figures that any scheme of improvement should equal 4 per cent annual sav¬ 
ing on the Federal investment. Figuring on a 4 per cent basis, we should ask 
for $25,000,000 to $50,000,000, but such is not our intention. We ask the Fed¬ 
eral Government to supply the difference between $1,000,000 and the cost of 
the completed work. 

The people in this valley are very enthusiastic to have this river open to 
navigation, feeling assured that they have the best proposition to-day in this 
country. 

When we compare figures it is then that we find out how important this 
valley is. The raw material and manufactured products going in and out from 
this valley amount to over $313,000,000. That is greater than the imports and 
exports of any city in the Western Hemisphere with the exception of New 
York and Buenos Aires, and it exceeds the foreign trade of any of the coun¬ 
tries of the Western Hemisphere with the exception of the LJnited States, Can¬ 
ada, Brazil, and the Argentine Republic. It is over 7^ per cent of the entire 
foreign trade of the United States. It is equal to 12^ per cent of the entire 
foreign trade of the Republic of France; it is equal to 25 per cent of the entire 
foreign trade of the Russian Empire; and it is equal to 50 per cent of the 
entire foreign trade of China and Japan; it is nearly $30,000,000 greater than 
the foreign trade of Manchester, England, where they have spent $90,000,000 
for canals and docks. It is $67,000,000 greater than the foreign trade of Glas¬ 
gow, where over $50,000,000 have been spent dredging the river. The foreign 
trade of the United States per capita is in the neighborhood of $400, but the 
trade of this valley in raw material and manufactured goods is over $1,000 
per capita. 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


57 


I write you these facts because I consider that on former occasions this 
comparison has never been made, but it is necessary to do so in order for you 
to base any just decision on the needs of the people of this valley for water 
transportation. 

The statistics collected by this office show a total of about 100,000 
tons of freight annually, including coal, received and shipped at 
Haverhill, the head of existing navigation on the river. While the 
statistics submitted by the waterway board indicate a large con¬ 
sumption of coal and of raw and manufactured products, it is prob¬ 
lematical how much of this freight would be carried by water if 
facilities were provided. Many manufacturers' are back from the 
line of the river and already equipped for receiving and shipping by 
rail, and it is to be feared that while undoubtedly many would de¬ 
rive great benefit, the actual water-borne commerce after the im¬ 
provement has been made would be disappointing in not showing a 
profitable investment. 

21. The savings on coal receipts by water are increased because 
the season of navigation, which would probably be reduced by ice 
and freshet conditions to six or seven months, occupies the part of 
the year when coal is the cheapest. This is offset by the fact that 
if all coal be received by water it must be delivered at a monthly 
rate twice as great as that involved in all-rail delivery, and one- 
half of it must be stored in warehouses or piles sufficient to hold a 
six-months’ supply. The w^ater facilities while in use must therefore 
be capable of daily delivering twice as much coal as the railroads 
need provide for, and the cost of storage and the interest on money 
invested in half an annual supply of coal will be lost if all coal 
comes by water. Then too, the cotton crop becomes available for 
shipment in the fall and the probability is that the river would be 
closed by ice before a supply for the cotton mills of Lawrence and 
Lowell could be obtained. Another point that militates against ship¬ 
ment of cotton partly by rail and partly by water is that generally 
through bills of lading can not be obtained on such shipments. 
Most of the cotton for shipment by water must first be shipped by 
rail to tidewater and then transferred to boat. As a rule this can 
not be done on through bills of lading and the producer or dealer 
has to wait until arrival of cotton at destination to collect the price. 
In shipping through by rail, on the contrary, the producer or dealer 
can collect the cash at once on his bill of lading. With the scarcity 
of funds that usually attends the movement of crops, this is an im¬ 
portant consideration. 

22. The Merrimack Valley Waterway Board states in its report 
that in the opinion of manufacturers there would be a saving of 50 
cents to $1 per ton on coal over rail rates if adequate facilities for 
water transportation were provided, in addition to the saving in 
transportation charges on general merchandise, raw material, and 
manufactured products. 

Experience has shown that the principal saving to be anticipated 
on inland waterway improvements is in the movement of coal, ore,, 
and other coarse, heavy freight in bulk. Although a saving is often 
estimated on general merchandise and other package freight, it is 
difficult, except perhaps between large cities comparatively near each 
other, to compel package freight to follow water routes. 


58 


MEFiRTMACK FIVER, MASS. AND 


N. IT. 


28, Sifnimarii of estimates. 

Cluinnel from Black Bocks Beacon to Ward Hill, with dam at Lions 

Mouth_ $2, 750, 000 

State estimate (Merrimack Valley Waterway Board) foi* 
channel from Ward Hill to Hunts Falls, Lowell, exclu¬ 
sive of land damages and bridge removal, new bridge, 

alterations, etc., as indicated above_$5, 443, 600 

Less cost of dam above Mitchells Falls and lock at Ward 
Hill, rendered unnecessary by dam at Lions Mouth, 

estimated_ 1,117, 000 

- 4, 326, 600 


Total_ 7, 076, 600 

*24. In addition to the estimate for the necessary cliannel there 
Avoiild be a very large indeterminate expenditure by State and local 
interests for snitable terminals at IlaA^erhill, LaAvrence, and LoAvell, 
and for floAvage rights. It is not improbable that the cost of the 
project, including the great changes to be made along the river fronts 
of the several cities to })roA'ide snitable terminal and transfer facili¬ 
ties and to adapt the existing factories and poAver plants to the full 
and adequate utilization of the Avater transportation proposed, Avith 
all other expenses incident to the improvement, Avould total upward 
of $10,000,000. Any im]>roA^ement undertaken by the United States 
should be conditioned on the State or local municipalities obtaining 
all floAvage rights Avithout expense to the United States, and proAud- 
ing and operating under public control adequate terminal and trans¬ 
fer facilities, and guaranteeing the operation, free of tolls foreATr, of 
the portion improved by the State. 

Considering the improvement on an investment basis and assum¬ 
ing a total cost of the entire improvement of $10,000,000, the annual 
interest charge at 4 per cent Avould be $400,000, to Avhich should be 
added at least $100,000 for maintenance, amounting to a tutal of 
$500,000, Avith no sinking-fund charges, to be saA^ed annually before 
the improvement Avould be placed on a paying basis. 

25. Using the most favorable figures reported in the ^lerrimack 
Valley WaterAvay Board’s report, the total iiiAA ard and outAvard com¬ 
merce of LoAvell, LaAvrence, and Haverhill might possibly total 
5,000,000 tons annuallAv It would be necessary to assume that one- 
half of it Avould go by Avater, and that there Avould be a net average 
saving of 20 cents per ton on these 2.500,000 tons, a total saving of 
$500,000, to equal the estimated annual cost of the improA^ement. 

26. It is claimed that although the saving, if the improvement 
Avere made, might not be reflected in the statistics of Avater-borne 
commerce, it Avould nevertheless exist because it Avould compel a 
reduction in rail rates. The regulation of such rates under existing 
laiv is under control of another branch of the Federal Government 
and the soundness of the doctrine of making Avateiuvay improvements- 
Avith Federal iiublic funds to compel reduction in rail rates has been 
seriously questioned. It does not seem sound economically. 

27. I have made several inspections of the river and have con¬ 
ferred Avith those interested. The Merrimack ^"alley Water av ay 
Board has made a comprehensive study of the scheme for improving 

upper river, has recommended the adoption of the project ancl 


the 








MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H, 


59 


nil appropriation of $1,000,000 toward carrying it into effect. The 
aiipropriatidn of this amount has been made by the Commonwealth 
conditioned upon approval of the project and making of an appro¬ 
priation by Congress toAvard the work. An earnest effort has been 
made on the part of the State authorities and the people of the 
IMerrimack Valley to obtain the improvement, but after careful con¬ 
sideration, I am forced to the conclusion that the Merrimack Eiver, 
from Lowell to the sea, or in any part of this section of the ri^er, 
is not Avorthy of further improvement by the United States at this 
time because of the large cost involved and the great uncertainty 
that benefits commensurate Avith so large an expenditure Avould be 
realized. Further, the cost of a tidal channel to Ward Hill is pro¬ 
hibitive and I consider the construction of a dam in the river to 
obtain the required depth as attended Avith serious objections both 
as to the pondage of seAvage and as to the effect of such a dam on 
the existing improvement of the river at the mouth by tidal scour. 

28. Other than as reported above, there are no questions of ter¬ 
minal facilities, Avater poAver, or other related subjects which could 
be coordinated Avith the suggested improvement in such manner as 
to rendei* the Avork advisable in the interests of commerce and navi¬ 
gation. The proposed dam Avoidd develop a mean head of Avater of 
about 8 feet, ranging from 4^ feet at high tide to 114 feet at Ioav tide, 
but because of the uncertainty as to the quantity of Avater available 
during the loAV-Avater season in summer time, Avhen the entire floAv 
of the river is shut off by the LaAvrence dam on Saturdays and Sun¬ 
days, it is doubtful if there Avould be sufficient Avater to fully coA^er 
lockage, leakage in a moA^able dam, and the necessary power for 
o])erating the locks. 

W. E. Craigiiill, 

Lieutenant Colonel^ Corjys of Engineers. 

[First indorsement.] 

The Division Engineer, Northeast Division, 

New York City., December 4, 191E 

To the Chief of Engineers, United States Army: 

1. Forwarded. 

2. In his report the district engineer officer has thoroughly treated 
the matter, and after careful and conscientious investigation has 
come to the conclusion that the investment is so large as to make it 
apparent that the total cost of the improvement proper plus terminal 
improA^ements, land damages, bridge repairs, etc., Avould largely 
exceed the sum Avhich the savings on cost of transportation Avould 
return to the people in a reasonable time. I am very familiar Avith 
this case and have given it careful thought ever since the preliminary 
examination Avas first placed in my charge. I have conferred Avith 
the district officer, have studied the maps and data in his office, and 
am forced to concur in his view that the benefits to be derived do 
not justify the investment on the part of the State and of the United 
States of the large sum of $10,000,000. 

Frederic Y. Abbot, 
Colonel.^ Corfs of Engineers. 


60 


MERKIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


[Second indorsement.] 

Office Chief of Engineers, 

December 

To the District Engineer Officer, 

Boston^ Mass,: 

1. It has been represented to the Chief of Engineers that parties 
interested in the improvement of the Merrimack Elver have substan¬ 
tial additional facts tending to prove the advisability of improving 
the Merrimack Eiver; and in order that you may give consideration 
to such additional data your report is returned to you herewith. 

2. Interested parties should be given such time as they desire to 
submit additional data, provided that the resubmission of the report 
should be delayed not longer than November 1, 1915. 

3. Attention is invited to the accompanying copy of letter^ to 
Hon. John J. Eogers, dated December 10, 1914. 

By command of the Chief of Engineers: 

W. Kelly, 

Major,, Corps of Engineers. 

(To be returned through the Division Engineer, Northeast Divi¬ 
sion.) 

[Third indorsement. ] 

United States Engineer Office, 

Boston., Mass.., October 1916. 

To the Chief of Engineers, United States Army. 

(Through the division engineer.) 

1. Pursuant to the foregoing instructions, a public hearing, of 
which a stenographic report is herewith,^ was held at city hall, Law¬ 
rence, Mass., April 15, 1915, at which full opportunity was given 
everyone interested to be heard, and since that time further con¬ 
ferences have been held at this office with Congressman Eogers, Mr. 
Sutherland, and others. At the hearing additional evidence ^ was 
presented and 16 exhibits ^ filed by persons representing Plaverhill, 
Lawrence, and Lowell interests. 

2. My principal reasons for reporting adversel}^ on this improve¬ 
ment were, briefly: 

(a) That it would not be a paying investment; 

(&) That the effect of a dam at Lions Mouth on the existing improvement 
of the river at the mouth by tidal scour would be detrimental; 

(c) That pondnge in the proposed dam of the sewage of cities along the 
banks would be objectionable. 

3. The most important consideration, to my mind, is the question 
of whether or not the improvement would be a paying investment 
for the United States to make for the benefit of our national com¬ 
merce, and much additional evidence on this point was introduced at 
the hearing. Some of the exhibits presented minimize the impor¬ 
tance of the effect of the dam on tidal scour and on the pondage of 
sewage, but I see no reason for changing my views on these points, 
as set forth in my report, and the present discussion will therefore 
be confined principally to the question of to what extent the river 
Avould be used for navigation, and what saving in freight rates could 
reasonably be expected. 


^ Not printed. 





MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


61 


4. Particular attention is invited to the very interesting brief by 
Congressman Rogers covering an exhaustive report upon the prob¬ 
able saying that might be expected on the coal shipments if water 
competition were provided. He figures that a saving of perhaps 
42 cents per ton on coal to Lowell and possibly a total saving of 
$575,000 on all coal used in Haverhill, Lawrence, and Lowell might 
be effected. Attention is also invited to the report^ of Mr. S. F. 
Sherman, secretary-manager of the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, 
who figures a possible annual saving in freight charges on Lawrence 
commerce alone of $038,780 and on five articles of commerce for the 
three cities of Haverhill, Lawrence, and Lowell a total of $1,610,202. 
These two exhibits are submitted by advocates of the project. On 
the other hand, attention is invited to the three papers,^ dated Janu¬ 
ary 12, March 24, and April 15, 1915, submitted by Mr. Hiram F. 
Mills, engineer of the proprietors of the locks and canals on Merri¬ 
mack River. Mr. Mills, in these papers, negatives the advisability 
of the proposed improvement and estimates the saving on coal at 
23 cents per ton, or possibly $230,000 on the 1,000,000 tons, which is 
a rough estimate of the amount of coal consumed in the locality. 
Thus we have the expected saving per ton on coal ranging from 23 
cents, as estimated by Mr. Mills, up through 42 cents, estimated by 
Mr. Rogers, to 95 cents, as estimated by Mr. Sherman. 

5. The figure of 6 cents per ton for towage from the mouth of 
the ^lerrimack to Lowell and return, based on a 1,500-ton barge, 
appears to me too low. In towing vessels up the tributaries of Bos¬ 
ton Harbor there is an additional charge of 1 cent per ton for 
steamers and barges and 3 cents per ton for sailing vessels for each 
bridge passed through. This is verified by the following quotation 
from Congressman Rogers: 

Boston & Maine R. R. G. F. A. I. C. C., No. 8383 (filed Dec. 1, 1908, effective 
Jan. 4, 1909, and still in force), provides rate of 85 cents per 2,240 pounds on 
coal from Boston (Mystic Wharf or Mystic River), Mass., to Lowell, Mass., and 
tariff provides that rate will include bridge charges or expenses for going 
through one bridge, viz., 1 cent per gross ton in steamers or barges and 3 cents 
per gross ton in sailing vessels. 

This being the case, it does not seem to me reasonable to suppose 
that conditions would be materially different on Merrimack River, so 
far as bridge charges are concerned, and a vessel would have to pass 
through 13 bridges and 2 locks in ascending the river to Lowell. 

6. In my foregoing report on the survey it was stated that— 

It is not improbable that the cost of the project, including the great changes 
to be made along the river fronts of the several cities to provide suitable termi¬ 
nal and transfer facilities and to adapt the existing factories and power plants 
to the full and adequate utilization of the water transportation proposed, with 
all other expenses incident to the improvement, would total upward of 
.$ 10 , 000 , 000 . 

The proponents of the project have questioned this figure and have 
indicated that they thought it too large and have stated that land 
damages would not amount to more than a quarter of a million dol¬ 
lars, etc.; but in this connection it should be borne in mind that all 
the mills at Lawrence and Lowell have been built up with the idea 
of using water for power (except at low-water periods, when auxil¬ 
iary steam plants are used) and without any provision or, perhaps, 
thought of the river ever being made navigable for seagoing vessels. 


^Not printed. 




62 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


Great changes must necessarily be made .to adapt these mills to the 
receipt of their coal and raw materials and shipment of their prod¬ 
ucts by water. At Lawrence the mills that are located on the rivei’ 
present a practically solid wall along the Avater front, with their 
machinery on the river side and their poAvei* plants and coal })Ockets 
on the land side, arranged for direct deliveries by rail. Such changes, 
if they Avere made at all, could be made only at great expense. Termi¬ 
nal and transfer facilities suitable for traffic based on a project Avhose 
actual cost Avould be over $7,000,000 Avould alone cost a very lai’ge 
sum. Further, it should also be noted that the Merrimack Valley 
WaterAvay Board carried the project only to a point beloAV the foot 
of Hunts Falls—more than 2 miles by any existing road from the 
LoAvell manufacturing plants and on the opposite side of the river. 
While it must be conceded that there is a large number of proponents 
of the project in the three cities of Haverhill, LaAvrence, and LoAvell, 
it should'be noted that of these large users of coal, the great manu¬ 
facturing intei’ests of Lawrence and LoAvell, Avhose consum])tion of 
raw materials and production of finished ])roducts are included in the 
statistics of the proponents and relied upon by them in justifying the 
proposed improvement, only three or four representatives of mills 
have favored the improvement, and none of the otliers has appeared 
or expressed any interest in it. 

7. I think Mr. Mills in his letter^ of April 15, 1915, expresses the 
attitude of the mill OAvners toAvard the project. He states: 

T have talked Avith representatives of all of the lar.aer manufactories of 
EoAA’ell, Aviio are AA^orking under an aggregate capit:il of $2OD00,00O and are 
paying an aggregate tax equivalent to more tlsan one-fifth of the total tax re- 
ceiA’ed hy the cit.v, and find they all regard the conclusions reached by Col. 
Craighill, as presented in his report of November 10, 1914, to the Chief Engineer 
of the United States Army, as Avise and .inst and have no request to make for 
their modification. 

The lack of interest of the mill oAvners, hoAvever, may be accounted 
for by the facts in statement of Hon. Butler Ames, of Lowell, viz: 

When I Avas in Congress I tried to inci’ease the railroad facilities betAveen 
LoAA^ell and Boston, and eAa^ry mill organization Avas opposed to it. As near 
as I could determine, the opposition arose from the fact that the large stock¬ 
holders in the mills AA^ere also stockholders in the railroads. 

8. Mr. John A. Murphy, of Lowell, states: 

While the present plan calls for terminals at Hunts Falls, the question of 
the further extension of the channel Avould only he a matter of engineering 
and a question of comparing the cost Avith a system of raihvay connections. 

This idea has also been expressed by others of LoAvell. Hunts Falls 
is a rocky stretch of the river Avhich formerly formed a pool at 
LoAvell. Some years ago the power company cut a channel through 
the falls which has loAvered the level of this pool and increased the 
head of Avater power about 3 feet. When it is also considered that 
to reach Lowell by cutting through this ledge or by another flight 
of locks Avould involA'C great expense and probably interference Avith 
the water powers at Lowell, I am inclined to think that the total 
approximate figure of $10,000,000 is too small. 

9. It should also be borne in mind that the provision in the river 
and harbor act of March 4, 1915, for an examination of Merrimack 


1 Not printed. 







MEREIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


63 


River from Lowell, Mass., to Manchester, N. H., a distance of over 
oO miles, indicates a further great expenditure to carry navigation 
up into the pool of the Pawtucket Dam at Lowell. This pool ex- 
tencls iTf miles up to Cromwells Falls, thence through the falls and 
rapids above Nashua to Manchester, a rise of about 33 feet, and the 
Government in reality would be entering upon a project of great final 
cost when it undertakes the extension of navigation above tidewater 
at Haverhill. 

10. It is a well-established fact that railroads make rates to meet 
Avater competition, and in railroad tariffs the folloAving note fre¬ 
quently appears in connection Avith rail rates to seaport destinations: 

Rates made to meet water competition and will not apply to intermediate 
points. 

Mayor Kane, of Lawrence, in his statement at the hearing, said: 

The United Shoe INIachinery Co. was located in Lawrence; that is, the com- 
r)anies from which th.at organization was formed, the Stanley Manufacturing 
Co. and the IMcKay Heeler, were here in Lawrence, producing shoe machinery. 
When the larger company was formed, they immediately v/ent where they got 
waterfront facilities. And so it comes about that the most desirable form of 
industries that were in Lawrence have gone out to get what we are seeking 
to get here to-day. 

The United Shoe Machinery Co. is located at Beverly, and the 
State of Massachusetts and city of BeATiIy, at an expense of about 
$80,000, provided a channel 9 feet deep at mean Ioav Avater, or 18 
feet at mean high Avater, in Bass RiA^er to the Shoe Machinery Co. 
plant, and mainly for its benefit, but as a matter of fact the company 
has never used the channel, although it has been located there for 
more than 10 years. At a hearing before me at BeA-erly on March 
31, 1914, a representatiA^e of the United Shoe Machinery Co. made 
the following statement: 

We haven’t used that channel; of course they have the small boats there 
of our employees, but the company hasn’t used the channel yet: but we do 
bring in there a large amount of supplies, in round numbers 15.000 tons of 
coal a year, 75 carloads of lumber, 70 carloads of coke, ?.0 cars of sand. All 
those supplies have come so far by rail, because onr contracts call for delivery 
that way, and partially because we have bought onr coal of local dealers rather 
than to go right to the mines. 

And this is to my mind practically what avouIcI happen if Hai^er- 
hill, Lawrence, and LoAvell had the facilities they seek for Avater- 
borne commerce. The fact that the facilities exist serves the purpose 
of obtaining more favorable freight rates, but the commerce anti¬ 
cipated on the rLer avouIcI probably never materialize. I do not 
doubt that the improvement of Merrimack River wmuld result in a 
sufficient reduction in the railroad rates to offset Avhatever saving 
might be made by Avater shipments, Avhich is in reality all that is 
desired by the proponents of the project. 

11. The Interstate Commerce Commission in its decision of July 
30, 1915, No. 4914, in the matter of rates, practices, rules, and 
regulations gOA^erning the transportation of anthracite coal, radic¬ 
ally cut the rail rates on anthracite coal from the mines, which cuts 
amount in some cases to the saving which could be effected between 
water and rail rates to certain points of shipment. While it may 
not have an important bearing on the present case, it illustrates the 
point that a large investment in AvaterAvay improvement may be 


64 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


entirely wasted when by the stroke of a pen an adjustment is ac¬ 
complished in rail rates that may have the effect of changing the 
method of transportation from water to rail. 

12. I therefore am forced to conclude after further careful study 
that the benefits to be expected are so uncertain, and the ph 3 ^sical 
difficulties, and consequently the cost, are so great that the improve¬ 
ment should not be undertaken by the United States. 

W. E. Craighill, 
Colonel^ Corps of Engineers. 

' [Fourth indorsement.] 

The Division Engineer, Northeast Division, 

New York City., November <?, 1915. 

To the Chief of Engineers, United States Army : 

Forwarded. 

1. In his report of November 10, 1914, Col. Craighill has based his 
discussion largely on an estimate of $10,000,000 as the gross cost of 
the improvements and appurtenant works. From the point of view 
of political economy this may be justifiable, but gross cost is perhaps 
not equitable when more than half is to be paid by local authorities, 
who should be trusted to decide as to their own expenditures, because 
they know better than a Government officer the indirect benefits they 
will derive. 

2. In the same report Col. Craighill estimates the cost of the 
18-foot channel from Black Eocks Beacon to Ward Hill with dam 
at Lions Mouth at $2,750,000. The State’s estimate from Ward Hill 
to Hunts Falls, exclusive of land damages, bridge removals, new 
bridge, alterations, etc., less the cost of a dam above Mitchells Falls, 
rendered unnecessary by the dam Col. Craighill proposes at Lions 
Mouth, is $4,326,600, a total of $7,076,600. 

3. In my preliminary examination report very careful thought 
was given to the legal aspects of the water-power situation, and the 
conclusion was reached that the United States could wisely proceed, 
if the cost was not too great, to give 18 feet of water up to the foot 
of the part of the river where canalization begins, but that above that 
point the State should undertake the work in order to coordinate to 
the best advantage the power and navigation features of the case, as 
the power developments have been made by the official agent of the 
State, the proprietors of the locks and canals on Merrimack Eiver. 

4. In my report the point delimiting State and Federal work was 
at Ward Hill. In the project of Col. Craighill his dam raises the 
river at Lions Mouth to 12.71, a height which the State report asserts 
to be possible without injury to the water power at Lawrence; but 
as the State canal leaves the river at Ward Hill, the delimiting point 
between State work and United States work remains unchanged. 
The cost to the State, however, will be reduced from its own estimate 
of $5,543,600 by $1,117,000 the cost of their proposed dam at Mitch¬ 
ells Falls and their lock at Ward Hill to raise the river and canal to 
the level 12.71. I believe that if any project be adopted. Col. Craig- 
hill’s project is wise, equitable, and well considered. His pool level is 
no higher than that proposed by the State for their pool above Mitch¬ 
ells Falls. They state officially, on the basis of their survey, that that 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


65 


will not injure the Lawrence water power. The contribution of the 
United States would in that case be about 39 per cent of the total, 
not including the items omitted in the State estimate as given in 
paragraph 2 above. These items, in Col. CraighilPs opinion, not 
based on known figures, will aggregate nearly $3,000,000. 

5. I believe that for the reasons given in my preliminary report 
the United States should keep hands off of the part of the river above 
Ward Hill. If Col. CraighilPs original figures are correct, and in 
paragraph 8 he now states he believes the $10,000,000 total estimate to 
be too small, the United States part of the work on my recommended 
division of costs would be not far from 27^ per cent of the total. If 
the State and other locally interested parties will agree to such a 
division of costs I hardly see how an unfavorable report on the United 
States part of the work can be justified; but I greatly doubt whether 
such a division would be accepted by them. The report ^ of the Mer¬ 
rimack Valley Waterway Board (Massachusetts House Document 
2169) contains the following conclusions: 

(a) That the Merrimac River should be improved and opened to navigation 
by providing a channel 18 feet deep at mean low water extending from the sea 
to Ward Hill, about 1 mile above Haverhill, and by providing a depth of 18 feet 
by means of a channel and by building canals and locks from Ward Hill to 
Hunts Falls at Lowell. 

(&) That the Federal Government carry into effect a project providing for a 
channel 18 feet deep at mean low water, from the sea to Ward Hill, about 1 
mile above Haverhill, and that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cooperate 
with the Federal Government in carrying such a project into effect, the basis, 
form, and method of cooperation to be agreed upon after all facts and data have 
been obtained. 

(c) That the Commonwealth of Massachusetts adopt and carry into effect the 
project prepared by the Merrimac Valley Waterway Board for the improvement 
of the Merrimac River from Ward Hill, about 1 mile above Haverhill, to Hunts 
Falls, at Lowell, substantially as outlined in this report, namely, by excavating 
a channel of adequate width and 18 feet deep in the river and by building locks 
and canals to provide a depth of 18 feet, and that the Federal Government co¬ 
operate with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in carrying such project into 
effect, and that the basis, form, and method of cooperation in respect to the 
State’s project be agreed upon at the same time as agreed upon in respect to the 
Federal Government’s project for improvement of the river as far as Ward Hill. 

(d) That work under projects for improvement of the Merrimac River from 
the sea to Hunts Falls at Lowell be carried on progressively upstream, and in 
such manner and at such times as will insure the earliest possible completion of 
the projected channel as far as Lowell. 

(/) That the legislature memorialize Congress to take early and favorable 
action looking to the improvement o*f the Merrimac River and its opening to 
navigation from the sea to Lowell, and urging that appropriations be made to 
carry out the necessary work in cooperation with the Commonwealth of Mas¬ 
sachusetts. 

(g) That an appropriation of .$1,000,000 be made by the legislature for the 
purpose of improving the Merrimac River, and as evidence of agreement by the 
Commonwealth to a policy of cooperation with the Federal Government with 
respect thereto, the expenditure of this appropriation to be conditioned upon the 
passage by Congress of appropriations for the same purpose. 

Conclusion (c) definitely states that the United States should co- 
c-perate in bearing the cost of work above Ward Hill. Col. Craig- 
hill’s project does do this to a degree, by his dam at Lions Mouth; 
but even this leaves the heaviest part of the burden on the State or 

1 Printed in part at the end of this document (see p. 143). 


H. Doc. 1813, 64-2-5 






66 


MEKKIMACK EIVEE^ MASS. AND N. H. 

local interests, if my suggested point of junction with the State work 
be adopted, even though this would eliminate State cooperation be¬ 
low Ward Hill, suggested in {h) above. 

0. In the discussion by Congressman lioberts, by former Con¬ 
gressman Ames, and by others, much stress is laid on the possible 
reduction of railroad rates that might result from the work. They 
also argue that railroad rates will increase if the river be left un¬ 
improved. Personally, I do not believe that this part of the dis¬ 
cussion should be given too great weight in reaching our conclusions. 
I realize that the consideration is one of the deepest significance to 
those who have to pay the railroad rates, but the United States now 
has provided for the control of rates quite largely by the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, and not improbably their powers may be in¬ 
creased in the future, so as to give them direct control. This is bet¬ 
ter than an indirect control by expensive river improvement, Avhich 
simply affords that commission an opportunity to permit reduc¬ 
tion of rates to points enjoying water competition. Mr. Walter L. 
Fisher, former Secretary of the Interior of the United States, in a 
paper published in the Journal of Political Economy, volume 23, 
pages 652, 653, and 654, writes as follows: 

* * * Many calculations by the opponents of waterway improvement are 

based upon the improper inclusion of items which do not belong in the ac¬ 
counts. These calculations, however, should serve the useful purpose of com¬ 
pelling us to test every new waterway project in the light of past experience, 
and to adopt correct principles of determining upon the wisdom of future ex¬ 
penditures. All of us—public officials and private citizens, taxpayers and 
tax spenders, shippers and consumers of freight—should have the keenest de¬ 
sire to learn why our past expenditures upon waterway development are now 
producing so little return, so that we may intelligently determine to what ex¬ 
tent, in what manner, and upon what projects future expenditures for water¬ 
ways should be made. 

Is it cheaper to transport freight by water than it is by rail? If it is cheaper 
upon the Great Lakes, is it also cheaper upon the great rivers? If it is 
cheaper upon the great rivers, is it also cheaper upon canalized rivers and 
upon artificial canals? Why is it cheaper in one case and not in another? Can 
some kinds of freight be carried more cheaply or more advantageously upon 
all or some of these different kinds of waterways than the same kinds of 
freight can he carried by rail? What are the kinds of freight and the kinds 
of waterways which permit this to he done, and what are the reasons for the 
different results? How far are these results due to natural and persistent 
causes inherent in the conditions of economic and commercial development? 
How far are they the result of unsound methods, of obstacles that can and 
should he removed? How far can and should destructive competition give 
way to helpful cooperation between these’two great agencies of transportation? 
Why should this country tolerate anything hut effective cooperation between 
them? If water transportation between two points is cheaper than rail, why 
should we permit a railroad, by any tactics or actions whatsoever, to deprive 
these points of the benefits of the cheaper means of transportation? If water 
transportation between two points is not cheaper than rail, why should we 
spend the public moneys to create or to promote water transportation between 
these points? With either agency of transportation the inclusive cost of the 
service comes in one way or another from the pockets of the public. Why 
should we spend money upon either unless the particular expenditure is justi¬ 
fied by convincing evidence of the benefits it will produce? We certainly 
should not permit a railroad to increase its general rates if it is cutting some 
of its rates below a fair margin of profit in order to stifle water competition, if 
it is buying boats in order to prevent them from running, if it is running boats 
at a loss in order to destroy independent shipping, if it is holding undeveloped 
water terminals in order to prevent their use, if it is refusing to cooperate in the 
transshipment of freight and the making of reasonable joint rates. And is it 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


67 


not equally clear that we should not expend public moneys upon any water¬ 
ways upon which freight can not be carried as advantageously as it could be 
carried upon railroads if the same amount of public money were expended upon 
each? Is it not in each instance a question of which agency, water or rail, is, 
upon the whole, the cheapest and most efiicient, considering in each instance 
the amount of money to be invested in the creation of the waterway and the 
railway, respectively, as well as the relative costs of equipment and operation? 

7. Following the above reasoning, which I believe is sound, the 
question reduces itself to a simple one: Will the river afford such ad¬ 
ditional facilities for transportation of freight as to justify the in¬ 
vestment in its improvement of the large sum of $10,000,000, of which 
$2,750,000 comes from the General Treasury and $7,250,000 from the 
State, cities, and the people on Merrimack River ? As the local inter¬ 
ests derive indirect benefits not enjoyed by the United States at large, 
they should be allowed to decide as to the advisability of their spending 
their $7,250,000 or more, if it prove necessary, and the United States 
must decide whether its quota, $2,750,000, is justified by the benefits 
the people of the United States at large will secure. Four per cent 
on this sum is $110,000. Even Mr. Mills estimates a possible saving 
in freights of $230,000 per annum, and he is confessedly an oppnoent 
of the project. Other estimates run much higher. Between the two 
limits probably the truth is to be found. If the total cost to the 
United States is limited to $2,750,000, I believe the General Govern¬ 
ment is perhaps justified in cooperating in a project for 18 feet up 
to Hunts Falls; but if the State would modify its project so as to 
carry 18 feet into the Lowell Pool,' the question would hardly be open 
to doubt. Congress has already ordered an examination of the Mer¬ 
rimack River with a view to carrying navigation from Lowell to 
Manchester, N. H. Before any definite action is taken by Congress 
on the United States part of the project to Lowell, I believe reliable 
data as to the improvement up to Manchester should be available for 
consideration by its committees. In other words, I advise consider¬ 
ing the entire Merrimack River up to Manchester as one indivisible 
subject. If it be determined that navigation can not be provided 
above Lowell, a terminus at Hunts Falls may afford sufficient justifi¬ 
cation to the United States to do the work up to Ward Hill if the 
State work provides the 18 feet from that point to Hunts Falls, the 
whole project lying entirely within the territorial limits of the State 
of JMassachusetts. If Congress is to extend navigation to Manches¬ 
ter, N. H., however, access must be had to Lowell Pool. For the 
reasons given above, the work needed to afford such access should be 
executed by the State of Massachusetts under its own officers, and 
not by the United States directly; but the interstate character of the 
river might have a bearing on the quota which the United States 
should bear, and possibly a cash contribution to the State of Massa¬ 
chusetts might be equitable. The matter of this combination of State 
and Federal work is one involving many difficulties, and should re¬ 
ceive very careful consideration, before the United States commits 
itself to any project for either of the improvements in question. 

Frederic V. Abbot, 
Colonel^ Corps of Engineers. 

[For report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and HarborSy 
see p. 5.] 


68 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION OF MERRIMACK RIVER, LOWELL TO 

MANCHESTER. 

War Department, 

United States Engineer Office, 

Boston^ Mass.^ March 25^ 1916. 

From: The District Engineer Officer. 

To: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army 
(Through the Division Engineer). 

Subject: Preliminary examination of Merrimack River from Lowell, 
Mass., to Manchester, N. H. 

1. In compliance with instructions contained in letter dated 
March 15, 1915, and with provisions of the river and harbor act 
approved March 4, 1915, the following report is submitted on the 
preliminary examination of Merrimack River, from Lowell, Mass., 
to Manchester, N. H. Under the river and harbor act of July 25, 
1912, an examination and survey of Merrimack River from its 
mouth to Lowell have been made and report on the preliminary 
examination was submitted under date of March 29, 1913, and on 
the survey under dates of November 10, 1914, and October 22, 1915. 
The survey report considered a channel to be obtained by dredging 
and by locks and dams, 18 feet deep at mean low water, extending 
from the sea to Hunts Falls, about 2 miles below Lowell, the work 
to be done in part by the United States and in part by the State 
of Massachusetts. Interests in Manchester now desire the exten¬ 
sion of this proposed 18-foot channel from Hunts Falls at Lowell 
to Manchester, N. H. The distance from the mouth of the river 
to Hunts Falls is about 38 miles, and from there to Manchester 
about 35 miles. The report on the improvement of the river to 
Hunts Falls, which was estimated to cost about $10,000,000, was 
unfavorable. The improvement herein proposed to Manchester is, 
of course, entirely dependent on the improvement of the river from 
the mouth to Hunts Falls, and to this extent the two should be con¬ 
sidered together. 

2. Locality .—Merrimack River has its extreme headwaters in 
northern New Hampshire. The main river is formed by the con¬ 
fluence at Franklin, N. H., of the Pemigewasset and Winnepesaukee 
Rivers, whose drainage areas cover 1,520 square miles. Near Con¬ 
cord, N. H., it receives the Contoocook River, and at Nashua, the 
Nashua River; their drainage areas being respectively 766 and 516 
square miles. The river flows in a generally southerly and easterly 
direction, and from Franklin, N. H., to its mouth near Newbury- 
port. Mass., is about 110 miles in length, of which about 60 miles 
lie in New Hampshire and about 50 miles in Massachusetts. The 
two cities above Lowell that the proposed improvement would reach 
directly are Nashua, N. H., a city of about 26,000 population, and 
Manchester, the largest city in New Hampshire, with a population 
of over 70,000, and an assessed valuation in 1912 of over $68,000,000. 
The river as a whole from Hunts Falls to Manchester is a rocky 
stream consisting of a series of pools and falls, not navigated except 
by a few small boats in the pool of the Pawtucket Dam at Low^ell. 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


69 


3. Previous reports ,— 


Section covered and date. 

Congressional documents. 

Annual 
Report of 
Chief of 
Engineers. 

Favorable or 
unfavorable. 


House or 
Senate. 

No. 

Congress. 

Session. 

Year. 

Page. 


Merrimack River from Law¬ 
rence. Mass., to Manches¬ 
ter, N. H., 1881. 

Senate 

Ex. 

45 

Forty-sev¬ 

enth. 

First.... 

1882 

532 

No definite recom¬ 
mendation as to 
worthiness or un¬ 
worthiness ap¬ 
pears to havo 
been made. 

Merrimack River from Low¬ 
ell, Mass., to old New 
Hampshire State line, 
1897. 

House... 

242 

Fifty-fifth... 

Second.. 

1898 

884 

Unfavorable. 


4. Worh previously done. —The section of the river under consid- 
eration has never been improved by the United States. Before the 
building of the railways, the river had been improved by private 
enterprise and is reported to have been navigated by canal boats 
(about 1806-1835) with about 3 feet draft, from Boston via the old 
Middlesex Canal to Lowell; thence to Manchester and above to Con¬ 
cord, N. H., by means of a series of locks and dams, the remains of 
some of which still exist. 

5. Navigable extent^ controlling depth., and jiuctuation of water 
surface. —Between Lowell and Manchester the river is navigated at 
present only by a few motor boats in the pool of the Pawtucket Dam 
at Lowell, where the controlling depth is about 8 feet. 

The river is subject to violent freshets in the spring. At the Paw¬ 
tucket Dam in Lowell the flood of April, 1852, necessitated the use 
of a guard gate across the upper lock. At that flood the river was 
14 feet 1 inch above the top of the Pawtucket Dam. Between Janu¬ 
ary, 1852, and May, 1901, there were 10 freshets during which the 
height of water exceeded 10 feet above the top of this dam. The 
dates and heights reported are as follows: 

April 22, 1852, 14 feet 1 inch above top of dam. 

March 20, 1859, 10 feet 8 inches above top of dam. 

April 20, 1862, 10 feet 91 inches above top of dam. 

March 14, 1865, 10 feet 9 inches above top of dam. 

October 6, 1869, 10 feet 3f inches above top of dam. 

April 21, 1870, 13 feet If inches above top of dam. 

December 12, 1878, 10 feet 11 inches above top of dam. 

April 16, 1895, 11 feet 51 inches above top of dam. 

March 3, 1896, 12 feet 9f inches above top of dam. 

April 8, 1901, 10 feet 3 inches above top of dam. 

In paragraph 4 of the report of March 29, 1913, on preliminary 
examination of Merrimack Biver from the sea to Lowell there ap¬ 
pears an extended discussion of the fluctuation of the water surface 
of the river, including a table showing the monthly mean gauge rep¬ 
lugs at the lower locks gauge at Lawrence, extending over a period 
of 63 years. Similar data for the section of the river between Lowell 
and Manchester are not available, but the volume of water as given 
for Lawrence would, of course, be decreased progressively upstream 




















70 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


by the flow of Concord and Nashua Elvers and other feeders of this 
upper section. Statistics of the flow of the river at Lawrence, fur¬ 
nished by the Essex Co., show a maximum average flow at Law¬ 
rence between 1880 and 1914 for the month of April of 16,822 cubic 
feet per second, and a minimum a^^erage flow of less than 3,000 feet 
per second during the same period for the months of July, August, 
and September. The floAV at Lowell is estimated to be about 90 per 
cent of that at Lawrence. In the preliminary examination report 
just referred to it was stated (par. 4) : 

In the nontidal part of the river (which is all of the river above Mitchells 
Palls, about 3 miles above Haverhill) the effect of the mills (referring to the 
mills at Lawrence and Lowell) is a maximum at the time of low water, for 
then they use the pools above the dams for pondage. While the mills are 
shut down they store water for use during the hours when they are in opera¬ 
tion, thus reducing to nothing the discharge immediately below the dams. In 
discussing this pondage, Mr. C. W. Thom, of Haverhill, said at the hearing on 
October 4, 1912: 

“ I don’t want to say anything against Lowell and Lawrence. I suppose 
they are looking after themselves and must protect themselves. But I did not 
know there was any such law that allowed them to absolutely stop the flow of 
this river. I suppose they have so liple water that they have to. But for the 
last three or four years, I have been motoring up here for the last few years, 
and I have seen the river absolutely cut in two at Lowell and Lawrence; 
not one drop. The flow absolutely stopped. Dams and canals are all right if 
they will let it go around and over and give us a flow down there. That would 
be all right. But if it was not for the protection of the tide we would have 
nothing there. Every week we would have absolutely nothing but mud flats, 
and we have not much more than that there now. It is something awful there, 
the stench of the mud.” 

Two photographs^ are inclosed showing the general character 
of the river bed over a stretch of the river extending about 200 to 
300 feet below the Pawtucket Dam at Lowell. The photograph look¬ 
ing upstream toward the dam was taken June 29, 1915, and shows 
the condition when the entire flow of the river is being used for 
power purposes. Under these conditions any water taken for lockage 
would be a direct reduction of the amount available for power pur¬ 
poses. The other photograph was taken from immediately beloAv the 
dam, looking downstream over about the same stretch of the river. 
On the right in this photograph is seen the wall of the northern 
power canal of the Locks & Canals Co. leading from Pawtucket Dam. 

Merrimack Eiver is navigated now to Plaverhill, Mass., through 
the channel dredged by the United States T feet deep at mean low 
water. Above Haverhill there is no commercial navigation. One 
or two miles above Haverhill are the Hazeltine Eapids and Mitchells 
Falls. At Lawrence, where the river is closed by the large power 
dam of the Essex Co., a pool is formed extending about 8 miles up¬ 
stream, making the river navigable to Hunts Falls for motor boats 
drawing 2 to 3 feet. At Lowell the river is again closed by the large 
power dam, known as Pawtucket Dam, of the proprietors of the 
Locks & Canals on Merrimack Elver. A small canal around the 
dam thrdugh the city of Lowell affords connection with the river 
below for small boats, but it is rarely if ever used. Between Lowell 
and the mouth of Nashua Eiver, in Nashua, 131 miles, it appears 
from previous surveys that the depth of channel is not less than 8 
feet, obstructed by bowlders and ledges and by the remains of an 


1 Not printed. 



MERKIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


71 


old dam across the river at Tyngs Island, through which is a gap 25 
feet wide carrying over 10 feet of water. The pool of the Lowell 
mill pond ends about 4 miles above the mouth of Nashua River. 
From there to Manchester, a distance of about 13 miles, the channel 
becomes much shoaler and more rocky and is obstructed by series of 
falls and rapids, in which there is a rise of about 31 feet to overcome. 

6. ^ Character and extent of improvement desired. —I inspected the 
section of the river under consideration on September 3, 1915, and 
again on October 1,1915, when I met at Manchester Ex-Congressman 
Eugene E. Reed, at Avhose instance the provision of the examination 
was inserted in the river and harbor act, and others interested in the 
proposed improvement. The improvement desired is the extension 
of the 18-foot channel considered in the survey reports of Novem¬ 
ber 10,1914, and October 22,1915 (referred to in paragraph 1 above), 
from Hunts Falls, below Lowell, to Manchester, N. H. I requested 
all of those present at the meeting to furnish statistics of commerce 
and other figures to show the benefits to be expected in case the 
improvement were made, and the amount and character of tonnage 
of material that would be carried in the river and the saving in 
freight rates which would be effected. The responses received ap¬ 
pear in paragraph 10, under the heading of “ Commerce, freight 
rates, etc.” 

7. Head room and available width of channel at bridges. —At 
Lowell and between Lowell and Nashua the river is crossed by six 
bridges, all without draw openings, viz: 


Name. 

Clear height. 

Clear 

width 

of 

channel. 

Mean 

low 

water. 

Mean 

high 

water. 

Centralville Bridge. 

Feet. 

22.7 

27.3 

27.6 

32.1 

21.5 

17.6 

Feet. 

4.6 

8.4 

1.2 

6.4 

7.8 

1.8 

Feet. 

150 
146.5 
/ 174.5 

1 173 

/ 150 

\ 140 

550 
131 

Aiken Street Bridge. 

Moodv Street Bridge. 

Pawtucket Street Bridge. 

Tyngs Island (Vesper Country Club). 

Tyngsborough. (highway)_'. 



There are two bridges in Nashua, a railroad bridge at Goffs Falls, 
and several bridges at Manchester, concerning which there are no 
details available as to dimensions. 

8. Unusual difficulties of navigxition. —The cities along Merrimack 
River are engaged principally in manufacturing, and the stream 
from Lawrence up is used for water-power purposes and not for navi¬ 
gation except, as previously stated, by a few motor boats in the pool 
of the Lowell Dam. The river is paralleled by the Boston & Maine 
Railroad, and the manufacturing plants are designed for receiving 
and shipping their freight by rail. The problem of obtaining naviga¬ 
tion must therefore be considered with reference to its effect upon ex¬ 
isting water-powers, and to the feasibility of adapting present manu¬ 
facturing plants to receive and ship freight by water. 

To extend 18-foot navigation from Hunts Falls to Manchester, the 
project may be divided into two parts: first, to obtain a channel 


















72 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


through or around Hunts Falls and the rocky valley immediately 
below Pawtucket Dam at Lowell into the pool above the dam, a total 
lift of about 47.5 feet; and second, to secure a channel from the dam 
through the pool and the falls in the river up to Manchester. 

Two methods of passing Hunts Falls and Pawtucket Dam have been 
considered: 

The first method is to follow the bed of the river from the end of 
the channel proposed by the Merrimack Valley Waterway Board in 
1914 at Hunts Falls, and carry a channel through Hunts Falls to 
the deep pool in the bed of the river at Lowell; and from this pool by 
means of locks and a canal to enter the pool above Pawtucket Dam. 
Access to the first pool from below Hunts Falls may be obtained by 
either of two methods: First, to carry a channel 200 feet wide at the 
level of the pool formed by the Lawrence Dam through Hunts Falls; 
second, by a lock at the foot of Hunts Falls with a lift of about 5 
feet (at low-water stage), and a canal from this lock along the north 
bank into the first pool. 

The first of these methods, through Hunts Falls, is considered the 
better, and comparison is in its favor on actual cost of structures, 
without considering the cost of compensating dredging of the river, 
which will be necessary with the canal on the north bank proposed 
by the second method; also, lowering the bed of the river through 
Hunts Falls to the pool above incidentally increases the head of 
water-power about 5 feet at low-water stage. 

From this deep pool to above Pawtucket Dam three alternative 
routes present themselves at first glance. 

The first of these is to pass through the deep pool to a point above 
the mouth of Beaver Brook, which enters Merrimack Piver from the 
north, and thence by means of locks enter a canal which would ex¬ 
tend along the north bank of the river for about three-fourths of a 
mile into Pawtucket Dam. 

The second is to pass through the same deep pool to a point a short 
distance above the Aiken Street Bridge, and there enter by means of 
locks a canal which would extend along the south bank of the river 
for about three-fourths of a mile, merging into the canal supplying 
water to the mills in the northerly section of Lowell. 

The third Avould be by departing from the Merrimack Piver bed at 
the lower end of the deep pool, excavating a channel in the rocky 
bed of the Concord Piver for about one-fourth mile to the lower dam 
of the Pawtucket Canal, and thence through the two dams in that 
canal, follow the route of Pawtucket Canal a distance of about If 
miles into the upper pool of the Merrimack about one-fourth mile 
above the Pawtucket Dam. 

Considering these three methods in reverse order, the route through 
the Pawtucket Canal requires heavy rock excavation in the bed of the 
Concord Piver, and passing through the city of Lowell is crossed by 
six highway and three railroad bridges. The canal at present is pre¬ 
sumably only of sufficient width and depth to carry the water supply 
necessary for operation of the mills; and to adapt it to the purpose 
of passing vessels without interference with the water-power supply 
would practically involve the additional construction of a canal of 
sufficient capacity for navigation purposes If miles in length 
through the city, where property damage would necessarily be 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 73 ' 

very great; for which reason it appears that this route may be 
dismissed without further consideration. 

Considering the second route, incorporating the power canal with 
the ship canal would probably result in no economy of construction; 
and as it is of practically the same length as the first and is on the 
south side of the river, where land values are higher, it appears to 
present the disadvantage of possible interference with existing water¬ 
power routes and no advantage of lesser cost. 

The first described route, therefore, from the deep pool to above 
Pawtucket Dam is considered the best. 

The second method of passing Hunts Falls and Pawtucket Dam is 
by the creation of a summit lake in the valley of Beaver Brook by a 
dam just above Dracut, and by means of locks and canal leave the 
river below Hunts Falls, lock up to this summit lake, and thence 
descend into the pool of the Pawtucket Dam by canal and lock 
through the valley of Flagg Meadow Brook. On consideration this 
was found impracticable, because of lack of sufficient water for 
lockage. 

To obtain a channel 200 feet wide and 18 feet deep at low-water 
stages of the river from Pawtucket Dam to Manchester will require 
a dam and lock with lift of about 14.5 feet just above the mouth of 
Nashua Eiver, a second dam and lock with lift of about 16.5 feet at 
the foot of Little Cohas Falls, and a large amount of excavation in 
the pools formed by the three dams. The length of these pools will 
be about 13.5 miles for that above Pawtucket Dam, about 12 miles for 
that above mouth of Nashua Eiver, and about 5 miles to the foot of 
Merrills Falls for that at Little Cohas Falls. The foot of Merrills 
Falls is in the lower part of the city of Manchester, and the pool can 
- not be further raised without flooding the tail races of the water 
powers, nor can navigation be further extended at the proposed pool 
level without excessively costly excavation in the rocky river bed. 

9. Water power^ land reclamation^ etc .—Some land reclamation 
would be incident to the disposal of the material to be excavated 
under the project, but as land is plentiful and cheap along the banks, 
no particular values would be created by the addition of such land as 
would be reclaimed in this way. 

The question of water-power development may enter into consid¬ 
eration of the project. It is assumed that the water at Manchester 
may be held at the level of the foot of Merrills Falls without material 
interference with the water power created by the Amoskeag Dam at 
Manchester. On this basis the total rise of the river from the pool 
of the Pawtucket Dam would be about 31 feet in a distance of about 
the same number of miles. In this distance the river experiences six 
distinct lifts, known as Cromwells, Moores, Little Cohas, Goffs, 
Short, and Griffins Falls. To overcome this rise, the two dams de¬ 
scribed in the preceding paragraph would be necessary, both to avoid 
excessive flowage damages and heavy cutting in the bed of the river. 
The water power at Manchester for eight or nine months of the year 
is stated to be 12,000 to 15,000 horsepower by day and 2,500 horse¬ 
power by night, reduced one-third to one-half during the remaining 
months of the year. For the purposes of consideration here it will 
be assumed that it averages 7,500 horsepower, which is obtained 
through a fall of about 52 feet. This volume of water, slightly in¬ 
creased, passes down river through the sites of the two navigation 


74 


MERKIMi^.CK EIVEE^ MASS. AND N. H. 


dams, and if it could be utilized at these two dams it would produce 
about 2,300 horsepower at each, taking it in direct proportion to the 
fall. The Little Cohas Dam, however, would be so near the water¬ 
power development of Amoskeag Dam that a movable dam would be 
necessary, so the water power could not be utilized. A fixed dam at 
Nashua River may be practicable, but although this statement is 
made without investigation or data to show the influence of floods on 
the power at so low a head as 14.5 feet, I think it may be said without 
uncertainty that power development in connection with this dam 
would be of but small value as compared to the cost of the project. 

10. Commerce^ freight rates^ etc .—As is clear from the foregoing, 
there is no water-borne commerce at present on the stretch of the 
river under consideration herein. At the meeting on October 1, 1915, 
at Manchester with those interested in the improvement I requested 
them to furnish statistics of the commerce of Nashua and Manchester 
and data to show the benefits anticipated if the improvement were 
made, together with estimates of the amount and character of ton¬ 
nage that would be carried by river if water transportation were 
available and the saving in freight rates which might be expected. 
Two requests for such data were made upon the ma 3 ^or of Nashua, 
but no reply has been received. Repeated requests upon those inter¬ 
ested in the project at Manchester were made, and submission of the 
report has been suspended for some time with the expectation that 
satisfactory information would be forthcoming, but the only report 
submitted in compliance with my request is contained in the follow¬ 
ing letter of the president of the Manchester Publicity Association, 
inclosing a copy of letter of Mr. Albert L. Clough, of Manchester : 


Manchester Publicity Association, 

Manchester, N. H., January 25, 1916. 


Dear Colonel Craighill : T have finally been able to get some data regarding 
tbe bulk tonnage coming into Manchester. 

This matter was turned over to a gentleman here in INIanchester to get this 
information, and he has gone into the matter very carefully, with the following 
results: 

In order that you may get this information just as it comes from him, I am 
sending you a copy of his letter of January 15 giving you this information. 

While he has not gone into the matter quite as exhaustively as what I had 
hoped he would—that is, from a standpoint of showing what benefits a navi¬ 
gable waterway to Manchester would have on surrounding territory adjacent 
to Manchester—still, I think the figures he has compiled will give you a basis 
on which to draw your conclusions, and I most sincerely hope that after giving 
these figures your consideration you will feel the matter is of sufficient impor¬ 
tance to find out in every possible way yourself not only the unfavorable condi¬ 
tions but all of the favorable conditions that would warrant you in making a 
favorable report. 

Regretting exceedingly that there has been so much delay in giving you these 
figures and assuring you that if there is anything of vital importance that has 
been omitted I can supply you with, I should be very glad indeed to have you 
advise me, I remain, 

Sincerely, yours. 


A. B. Jenks. 


Col. W. E. Craighill, 

Corps of Engineers. 


January 15, 1916. 

Dear Sir: As you will remember, I was asked to ascertain the approximate 
tonnage of bulk freight shipped annually into and out of this city which could 
be handled by canal if the T\Ierrimack deep-waterway project was carried out. 



MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


75 


Ill order to ji;ather the required data, the attached letter ^ was sent out on 
November 12, 1915, to all manufacturers, coal dealers, lumber dealers, public- 
service companies, and users of bulk materials of a nature which could be han¬ 
dled by water. Very few replies were received to this letter and to “ follow-up ” 
letters sent out somewhat later, and most of the information was obtained 
rather laboriously by urgent appeal to the various shippers over the telephone. 

I conclude that coal and building materials are the main classes of freight 
which could be carried over the proposed canal, and that practically all the 
shipments would be inward, there being but little outgoing freight which could 
be handled by water. Most of our lumber and nearly all of the stone used here 
come from the north. 

In my opinion, about 265,000 tons of coal comes into this city per year and 
perhaps about 175,000 tons of materials classitiable as building materials. Of 
raw materials for manufacturers perhaps about 90,000 tons are annually 
received, making a total for these three classes of about 530,000 tons annually. 
If to this total be added 10 per cent to take account of materials not covered 
in the estimate, the total annual tonnage may be taken as 563,000. 

These estimates are of a decidedly approximate character, but they are very 
much better than mere guesses, and I think are fairly near the truth. 

Yours, very truly. 


Albert L. Clough. 

Mr. A. B. Jenks, President, 

Manchester Puhlicity Association and Chamher of Commerce, 

Manchester, N. H. 


Most of the coal for Manchester is now received by water to 
Portsmouth, thence about 40 miles by direct rail connection over 
the Portsmouth branch of the Boston & Maine Railroad. The 
freight rate on coal is about $1 p,er gross ton. The normal water 
rate on coal from Hampton Roads to Portsmouth is but 5 cents more 
than the Boston rate and 15 cents to 20 cents less than the rate to 
Newburyport at the mouth of Merrimack River. Manchester and 
vicinity thus receives practically all its water-borne coal from Ports¬ 
mouth as the distributing point. Nashua probably receives its 
water-borne coal from both Portsmouth and Salem as distributing 
points, and the rates are not materially different from those for 
Manchester. It will therefore be seen that to start with at Newbury¬ 
port the rate is 20 cents more than at Portsmouth. (The rate by sea 
to Salem is the same as the Boston rate.) The largest single user 
of coal in Manchester is the Amoskeag Manufacturing Co., which 
has perhaps the largest textile mills in the world. Its coal consump¬ 
tion is about 150,000 tons per annum, which is delivered directly by 
rail at its large power plant now located about three-fourths of 
a mile above the point where navigation would end. For this com¬ 
pany to bring coal by water would involve either rehandling at 
Manchester to reach its power plant, or else moving its power plant 
doAvnstream to the head of navigation. The use of either method would 
probably offset any saving in freight rates that might be expected. It 
must be borne in mind that the all-water freight rate for coal from 
Hampton Roads, or any of the Atlantic coal-distributing points di¬ 
rectly to points on Merrimack River is quite problematical when it 
is considered that it would be necessary to add to the voyage by sea 
to Newburyport about 70 miles of river navigation to Manchester 
through five or six flights of locks and many drawbridges over a 
river which would be closed to navigation for a large part of the 
year and perhaps not easy of navigation at any time. The freight 
tonnage as given above by the Manchester Publicity Association, 


1 Not printed. 





76 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


representing as it presumably does the total freights of that class 
received at Manchester, manifestly would not all come by water if 
navigation were provided. 

Existing plants are adapted to receive their shipments by rail and 
it can not fairly be expected that expensive alterations necessary to 
receive such freight by water would be quickly adopted unless the 
advantage were very substantial. Assuming, however, that 400,000 
tons would be received by water, which I believe is much more than 
can reasonably be anticipated for both Nashua and Manchester, and 
a saving of 25 cents per ton would be made, which I also believe to 
be more than could be reasonably expected, and capitalizing this 
saving on a 4 per cent basis, such saving would justify an expendi¬ 
ture of $2,500,000, which is but a fraction of what the project would 
cost, disregarding entirely the expense of maintenance and opera¬ 
tion, which would be large. 

11. Terminal facilities .—As the section of the river under con¬ 
sideration is not navigable for commercial vessels there are no exist¬ 
ing water terminals and no offers of cooperation by State or local 
authorities to provide suitable terminals in case the river were made 
navigable have been received. As previously stated, the manufac¬ 
turing plants and all industries throughout the Merrimack Valley 
have been laid out without reference to the possibility of the river 
being made navigable and a very large expenditure would be neces¬ 
sary to provide suitable terminals and to adapt existing plants to 
the receipt and shipment of freight by water. Sufficient data to 
determine the location and nature of such terminals are not avail¬ 
able, and in view of the conclusions reached as to the worthiness of 
the project, are probably unnecessary for the purposes of this report. 

12. Woi'thiness .—After careful consideration I report that, in 
my opinion, Merrimack Kiver from Lowell, Mass., to Manchester, 
N. H., is not worth}^ of any improvement by the United States un'der 
present conditions for the reason that the benefits to be expected 
would not be commensurate with the cost involved. This opinion is 
rendered without regard to the adverse reports submitted by me 
under dates of November 10, 1914, and October 22, 1915, on the im¬ 
provement of the river from the sea to Lowell, but I should be forced 
to the same conclusions, for the same reasons, if an 18-foot channel 
from the sea to Lowell already existed. 

W. E. Craighill, 
Colonel.^ Corps of Engineers. 

[First indorsement.] 


Office of Division Engineer, Northeast Division, 

New York City., March 31.^ 1916. 

To the Chief of Engineers, concurring in the views of the district 
engineer officer. 


Frederic V. Abbot, 
Colonel.^ Corps of Engineers. 


[For report of Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, see 

p. 8.1 


MEREIMACK EIVEK^ MASS. AND N. H. 


77 


War Department, 

Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

Washington^ August ^5, 1916. 

From: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army. 

To: The District Engineer Oihcer, United States Engineer Office, 

Boston, Mass. 

Subject: Preliminary examination and survey of Merrimack Eiver, 

Mass. 

1* The Chief of Engineers has under consideration the reports on 
preliminary examination and survey of Merrimack Eiver, Mass., 
and he would like to have additional information on certain points 
that do not seem to be adequately covered in these reports. 

2. In reviewing the report of preliminary examination, the di- 
vision.^ngineer expressed the opinion that the project should include 
the deepening of the channel across the bar at the mouth of the river, 
and that the studies to be made should cover this point. The Board 
of Engineers also recommended that the survey to be made by the 
district officer should include studies for a channel over the bar at the 
entrance to the river of suitable depth to accommodate a draft of 
17 feet at mean low water. It was the expectation that the report 
of survey would discuss conditions on the bar and give an estimate 
for such work as might be considered necessary to permit 17-foot 
boats to cross the bar at low water in stormy weather. 

3. The district officer apparently overlooked this feature in making 
the report of survey, the situation at the mouth being disposed of by 
a statement, after describing recent changes in that vicinity, that 
this portion of the improvement might well be left to await the effect 
of the recent jetty extension, while the other Avorks are being built, 
and that should the jetty improvement prove insufficient in its final 
effect, resort may be had to dredging the bar, which was authorized 
by the act of June 25, 1910, as part of the project for Newburyport 
Harbor under which project suitable action may be taken to accom¬ 
plish the required depth. The existing project, however, contem¬ 
plates a depth of only 17 feet on the bar. The views of the district 
officer are requested as to the increase in depth that should be pro¬ 
vided over the bar on account of wave action in order to accommodate 
boats of the draft that can use the proposed 18-foot channel inside 
the bar, together with a statement of the work considered necessary 
to give the additional depth and its estimated cost. 

4. A statement is also desired of the amount of water that would 
be consumed in lockage if the traffic attains the volume anticipated 
by local interests, and an approximate estimate of the loss to water¬ 
power interests due to this use of the water. 

5. The depth of the 18 feet proposed for this improvement appears 
somewhat inadequate for an important traffic of sea-going A^essels, 
the tendency being to increase the size of barges in coastwise trade. 
Information is desired as to the probability of there remaining in 
operation in ocean traffic for many years to come sufficient number 
of barges not exceeding 17 feet in draft to accommodate the large 
volume of traffic anticipated by local interests in this case. 

By command of the Chief oi Engineers. 

W. Kelly, 

Major^ Corps of Engineers. 


78 MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 

[First indorsement.] 

United States Engineer Office, 

Boston^ Mass,^ October 26^ 1916. 

To the Chief of Engineers, United States Army: 

1. Merrimack River is tidal up to the foot of Mitchells Upper 
Falls, and the tidal prism computed between mean low and mean 
high water is about 1,090,000,000 cubic feet. A dam located at Lions 
Mouth will cut off about two-thirds the length of the tidal section 
of the river and about 377,000,000 cubic feet, or about 34 per cent 
of the tidal prism. The tidal prism of the river consists in part of 
river discharge, which varies widely from time to time. The annual 
average flow of fresh water from the river at the Lawrence Dam is 
about 6,705 cubic feet per second, and the accumulation of this dis¬ 
charge in the tidal prism during flood tide is about 140,805,000 cubic 
feet. The ebb of the tidal prism is augmented by the river flow 
during the ebb period, amounting to about 158,103,900 cubic feet, 
making the preponderance of ebb over flood flow at the mouth of the 
river 298,908,900 cubic feet. This preponderance of ebb flow will 
not be affected b}^ the introduction of a dam in the tidal basin and 
will still be available to carry on the process of scour in the river 
channel and over the bar at the mouth. 

At the mouth of the river the deep gorge between the north end 
of Plum Island on the south side of the river and Salisbury Beach 
Point on the north side has been a feature of all surveys since that 
of 1880 and has not varied greatly in area of its discharge cross 
section, which was about 21,000 square feet, to mean ocean level in 
1880, and about 27,000 square feet in 1915, a mean of 24,000 square 
feet. The area of discharge cross section at mean ocean level in 1915 
was about 24,000 feet between the outer ends of the parallel arms of 
the jetties. 

These cross sections are the result of current velocities created by 
the passage of the tidal prism at heads produced by the tidal rise 
and fall of the ocean, and it appears that a reduction of 34 per cent 
in tidal prism will result in a very material reduction of the natural 
gorge cross section and also will render inefficient the artificially 
maintained discharge cross section between the parallel arms of the 
present jetties, with a corresponding loss in the depth of water now 
maintained. To accommodate boats of the maximum draft that can 
use the proposed 18-foot river channel while crossing the bar in pe¬ 
riods of rough weather, increased depth in the channel over the bar 
must be provided. This increased depth is 5 feet in the new project 
for Broad Sound Channel, Boston Harbor, in a general channel 
depth of 35 feet. In the shoaler depth of the proposed Merrimack 
River channel the seas on the bar will run higher under equal 
conditions of weather and an allowance of perhaps 7 feet, or increase 
to 25 feet at mean low water for the bar channel may fairly be made. 

To make the jetties conform to the reduced tidal prism caused by 
the introduction of a dam will require radical reduction in the area 
of the discharge section between them and possibly the application 
of controlling Avorks at the gorge in the form of a training wall. 
The following is an estimate of the cost of the work if this form of 
improA'Cment were attempted: 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 79 

For relocating one jetty arm to contract the discharge cross section 

between the jetties_$240, 000 

For possibly necessary control of the discharge cross section 
at the gorge: 

Training wall extending southeasterly from Salisbury 

Beach Point_$32, 500 

Protection of shore at north end of Plum Island_ -32, 500 

-- 65, 000 


Total_ 305, 000 


I do not consider, however, that this method of improvement 
would be advisable and do not recommend it. I believe the only 
effectual method to keep a channel of 25-foot depth at mean low 
water, which is, perhaps, the least depth that should be provided 
if it is to be expected that vessels of 17-foot draft should be able to 
enter at all conditions of weather and tide, is by dredging. The 
locality is very exposed and there is no harbor where vessels could lie 
to await suitable conditions nearer than Portsmouth on the north 
and Gloucester on the south. While the navigation season on the 
upper river would be limited to seven months of the year, naviga¬ 
tion is open to Newbury port the year round and dredging in mainte¬ 
nance of the channel over the bar would be necessary periodically 
throughout the year. For maintaining a channel of 25-foot depth 
over the bar by dredging only, would require a seagoing suction 
dredge of the smaller type throughout the year; one like the General 

G. G. Meade^ of the Grand Rapids, Mich., district (166 feet long, 38 
feet wide, 19 feet deep) would be suitable. Such a dredge would 
cost now about $250,000, which should be added to the cost of the 
project. The annual cost of maintenance of the project would also 
be increased by $80,000, made up as follows: 


Four per cent interest on $250,000-$10, 000 

Annual cost of operations of dredge- TO, 000 

Total_ 80, 000 


2. Any discussion as to the amount of water that would be con¬ 
sumed in lockage if the traffic attains the volume anticipated by local 
interests must be based on assumption throughout and consequently 
is little better than guesswork. All commerce to LoAvell will pass 
through the lock at Lawrence, and in all probability a large part of 
that to Lawrence as well, because of the better opportunity to land 
and distribute materials afforded upon the shores of the i^ool above 
the dam. 

I will assume that about 50 per cent of the Lawrence commerce 
would pass the lock. On page 7 of Exhibit 9 accompanying steno¬ 
graphic report ^ of hearing at Lawrence on April 15, 1915, Mr. John 

H. Murphy indicates the expectation of 1,000,000 tons of commerce 
to Lowell, and in Exhibit 3, page 2, Mr. S. F. Sherman estimates 

I, 106,510 tons of freight received and shipped at Lawrence. Assume, 
then, from these two statements that the total commerce that would 
pass the lock at Lawrence annually would be 1,500,000 tons. The 
average coal barge of l7-foot draft, loaded, carries about 1,500 tons. 
It will be assumed that the coal will be carried in barges of this ton¬ 
nage, under tow, and as the balance of the commerce would be car¬ 
ried in vessels of various sizes, an average of 500 tons is assumed. 


1 Not printed. 
















80 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AKD K. H. 


The coal is indicated in Congressman Rogers’s statement (p. 24 of 
stenographic report^ of hearing of Apr. 15, 1915) to be 400,000 
tons to Lowell, and to Lawrence 540,000 tons, and assuming that one- 
half the latter amount would pass up into the pool of the Lawrence 
Dam, would make a total of 670,000 tons passing through the lock 
at Lawrence. Carried in 1,500-ton barges it would require 447 trips 
up, and as these barges are not suited for general commerce there 
would be 447 return trips down, light. The balance of the commerce 
(1,500,000 minus 670,000 tons), 830,000 tons, would be carried in gen¬ 
eral cargo carriers that might be assumed to carry cargo in going out 
as well as coming in. On this basis the number of lockages would be 
1,660. It is therefore assumed that the commerce as antici¬ 
pated by the proponents would require 447 lockages up, loaded, and 
447 down, light, of 1,500-ton barges with towboat, and 1,660 lock¬ 
ages of a 500-ton vessel, 830 up and 830 down, all loaded. The lock 
as designed by the Merrimack Valley Waterways Board is 360 feet 
long, 45 feet wide, and the depth at maximum upper pool level is 
approximately 32 feet, making 518,400 cubic feet contents. It is 
subdivided into two smaller sections, one 120 feet long and one 240 
feet long; the cubic contents of the larger section being 345,600 feet. 
The 1,500-ton barges with towboat will require use of the large lock; 
the 500-ton vessels will be accommodated in the 240-foot section of 
the lock. The displacement of a 1,500-ton barge with towboat will 
be about 90,000 cubic feet, loaded, and about 39,000 cubic feet, light. 
The displacement of a 500-ton vessel, including towboat or own 
power, will be about 30,000 cubic feet. 

The small number of lockages per day of the anticipated traffic 
makes it improbable that economy can be practiced often by favor¬ 
able combination of upward and downward lockages, and it will be 
assumed that each passage will require the water necessary for a 
single lockage. 

The water that will be required for lockages determined on the 
above basis is as follows: 


For coal traffic : Cubic feet. 

447 trips up, loaded (447X518,400, contents of large lock)__ 2.31,724,800 
447 trips down, light (447X [.518,400—30,000])_ 214,291,800 


446, 016, 600 

For balance of commerce: 

830 trips up, loaded (830X345,600, contents of large section 


of lock)- 286,848,000 

830 trips down, loaded (880X [345,600—30,000])_ 261,948,000 


Total water required for lockage of commerce_ 

During a large part of the navigation season small pleasure 
boats will pass the dam. A boat lock is provided for their 
accommodation 60 feet long, 10 feet wide, 32 feet lift—19,200 
cubic feet. Allowing an average of 8 passages per dav 
throughout the season will give 1,712 lockages, which will 
require about_ 


Total water required for lockage purposes_ 1, 027, 683, 000 

The navigation season will extend through about seven months, 
rom May 1 to November 30. This is 214 days total, and the average 
flow ot the river in second-feet that will be required to supply water 
tor lockages will be: 


994, 812, 600 


32, 870, 400 


1 Not printed. 

















MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


81 


Second feet. 


/ 1,027,683,000 \ 
V214X24X60X60y“ 


A large quantity of water in the aggregate will be lost in leakage of valves 
and gates of the lock; allow for this loss_ 


55.5 

29.5 


Making a total draft on the river because of the lock 


85.0 


MINIMUM RIVER FLOW REQUIRED FOR FULL POWER OF THE ESSEX CO. 

From information in letter to this office from Mr. Richard A. Hale, 
engineer of the Essex Co., this minimum quantity is deduced, as 
follows: 


Cubic feet. Cubic feet. 

5,000 second-feet for 9 hours 45 minutes_ 175, 500, 000 

2,000 second-feet for 14 hours 15 minutes_ 102,600,000 


278,100, 000 

For 5 days of week- 1 , .390, 500, 000 

5,000 second-feet for 5 hours on Saturday_ 90, 000, 000 

2,000 second-feet for 19 hours on Saturday_ 136, 800, 000 


226, 800, 000 

For 1 day (Saturday)_ 226, 800, 000 

2,000 second-feet for 12 hours on Sunday (86,400,000 cubic feet 
for 1 day)- 86,400,000 


Total quantity of water required for water power for 7 

days- 1,703,700.000 

Average river flow necessary— 7^24X60X60 ^"’^^^ second-feet. 


It appears, then, that during periods when the weekly average 
floAV of the river equals the Essex Co. power requirements of 2,817 
second-feet, plus the 85 second-feet required -for lockages, or 2,902 
second feet, there will be no direct interference wdth the water power 
at Lawrence. 

Study of the records of weekly average flow for a period of 35 
years, 1880 to 1914, maintained by the Essex Co. at Lawrence, shows 
that during the navigation season of 7 months. May to November, 
inclusive, the weekly average fell below 2,902 second-feet during 23 
w’eeks in 1899 and 1914, 22 weeks in 1908 and 1909, 21 weeks in 1884 
and 1910, and in decreasing periods to but 1 week in 1902. 

Eighty-five second-feet of w^ater at the fall of 30 feet at Lawrence 
dam will make 232 horsepower as the maximum loss of power used 
in lockages, which at $30 per horsepower per year will be $6,960 a 
year, the cost to replace by steam power. Reducing this loss to the 
maximum period of 23 weeks of deficient river flow gives a probable 
loss of $3,078.46. 

It thus appears that the maximum'direct loss to the Essex Co. 
for water taken for the lock at Lawrence, computed on a liberal basis 
for quantity of w^ater required and a maximum dry 3 ^ear, wfill be 
about $3,000. 

Because of the greatly varying Aoav of the river during the summer 
months the periods of interference Avith the Avater poAver Avill vary 
widely between the maximum and nothing. It appears, howeA^er, 
that provision must be made to meet the maximum loss, as repre¬ 
sented by the aboA^e figures. 

3. To aid in the solution of the question asked in paragrajh 5, 
page 77, letters were addressed to 16 coal shippers, ship-building con- 
H. Doc. 1813, 64-2-6 



















82 


MERKIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 

cerns, ship brokers, and others, inquiring as to the probable ten¬ 
dencies in future in regard to draft of vessels engaged in coastwise 
traffic. Replies ^ were received from fourteen of those to whom in¬ 
quires were sent. Attention is invited to the original letters ^ which 
are inclosed, but for convenience the following brief extracts are 
given, indicating the general tenor of the replies: 

Abstract of replies to letters asking whether there will be remaining in 
operation in ocean traffic in years to come sufficient number of barges not ex¬ 
ceeding 17 feet in draft to accommodate the large volume of traffic necessary to 
justify costly improvements. 


Company and date of 
letter. 


Reply. 


Reply 
consid¬ 
ered fa¬ 
vorable. 


Wm. Cramp & Sons 
Ship & Engine Build¬ 
ing Co., Aug. 31, 1916. 
Williams & Peters, Sept. 
1, 1916. 


Fore River Shipbtiild- 
ing Corporation, Sept. 
1, 1916. 

Lehigh Valley R. R. Co., 
Sept. 1,1916. 


C. W. Chadwick & Co., 
Sept. 6 1916. 

Standard Transporta¬ 
tion Co., Sept. 5,1916. 

The Texas Co., Sept. 5, 
1916. 


Berwind-White Coal 
Mining Co., Sept. 7, 
1916. 

New York Shipbuilding 
Co., Sept. 6,1916. 


New York, Ontario & 
Western Ry. Co.. 
Sept. 26,1916'. 

Coastwise Transporta¬ 
tion Co., Sept. 28, 
1916. 

Susquehanna Coal Co., 
Oct. 2,1916. 

Consolidation Coal Co., 
Oct. 6,1916. 


Philadelphia & Reading 
Transportation Line, 
Oct. 17, 1916. 


For the coastwise service there will always be a large number of barges 
and light-draft steamers of 17 to 20 feet. 

While tendency on Atlantic seaboard and Great Lakes is for in¬ 
creased size of vessels, believe there will be a sufficient number of 
barges in service to take care of this tonnage, even if necessary for 
coal companies owning docks to build them themselves. 

Development of our rivers and harbors will probably not be such as to 
permit of utilization of only large deep-draft barges. So far as there 
being a large number of barges still in service that will use 17-foot 
channels, seems that this is surely guaranteed by Erie Canal traffic. 

In all of our trade to eastern ports we find that a barge of about 1,600 
tons capacity or 16 to 17 feet draft, is the barge best suited to the 
needs of our customers. This clearly shows the necessity for barges 
of light draft as well as for those of deep draft. Where there is much 
commerce in and out of any port it would seem that they would 
require more than 17 feet of water, as the traffic is constantly grow¬ 
ing and the depth of other A^essels than those particularly specified 
is increasing. 

Of opinion that will be increasing number of barges both under and 
over 17-foot draft. 

Tendency is to increase draftT)f vessels. In barge transportation tow¬ 
ing must be done by seagoing vessels, which rarely draw less than 
17 feet. 

Building of small vessels with comparatively light draft for commer¬ 
cial purposes is practically abandoned, a'lthough may be used in 
some special trades, but as a class they will disappear and be sup¬ 
plemented by vessels requiring 25 to .30 feet of water. Channel 17 
or 18 feet is deeper than is necessary for lighterage facilities but not 
sufficient for seagoing vessels. 

Unwise to undertake to dredge certain North Atlantic coast and | 
river harbor ports based on depth of only 18 feet at mean low water I 
as tendency is to enlarge size of vessels and contemplated dredging 
should be based on depth of at least 26 feet at mean low water. 

Doubts whether barges in use along the coast will increase in number 
or size. Tonnage, especially coal, will be carried in steam vessels 
between well-established points where there is sufficient depth to 
accommodate vessels with cargoes up to 10,000 tons. 

Has disposed of their deep-draft barges because they are not suitable 
for their trade. Does not think time will ever come when a boat 
drawing from 15 to 17 feet will not be a most suitable and popular 
boat in coal trade. 

Thinks no barges will be built of draft of 24 to 26 feet. Most barges of 
this draft are old ships cut dovm. Later barges being built will 
have draft of 17 to 22 feet. Steamers with draft of 20 to 28 feet are 
fast taking place of barges and sailing vessels. 

"W ill always be as many, if not more, barges of 17-foot draft in anthra¬ 
cite coal trade, but doubtful in bituminous trade whether, in a very 
few years, there will be any barges of draft less than 26 to 28 feet. 

Although most economical way to handle coal is in large steamers 
with draft of 26 to 28 feet, barges drawing 16to 18 feet will still be 
requiredbutcompaniesrunningsteamers are endeavoring to drive 
them on the sea. Eighteen-foot channels should be pro\'ided 
everywhere in New England unless expense too great; poor econ¬ 
omy to provide more than this except at large ports. 

Is of opinion that demand for barges not exceeding 17 to 18 feet draft 
loaded will warrant perpetuation of this type of vessel and that 
there will remain in operation in the coastwise trade in years to 
come a sufficient number of such barges to warrant contemplated 
improvements based on a depth of 18 feet at mean low water. 

(This is classed as unfavorable as it should be noted that in the 3d 
paragraph of his letter (p. 89) the writer remarks that 18 feet 
draft at mean lew water means 26 to 28 feet at high water between 
Cape Cod and Bangor, Me. In considering his remarks it should 
be borne in mind that he did not appreciate that the improvement 
under consideration involved navigation through a pool where 
only 18 feet depth would be available at all times.) 


No. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. 

Yes, 

No. 

No. 

No. 

No. 










MEKKIMACK RIVEE, MASS. AND N. H. 


83 


It is my own^ opinion that large steam colliers carrying 8,000 to 
10,000 tons are fast displacing coal barges. The New England Coal & 
Coke Co. and the Coastwise Transportation Co. have fleets of this 
type of vessel and the Darrow-Mann Co. is building five of them, 
the smallest of which is 9,500 tons carrying capacity. These vessels 
draw between 25 and 30 feet of water and it is not improbable that 
the lower rates that could be made by such vessels to ports along the 
coast, such as Boston, Salem, Portsmouth, and Portland, would 
largely offset the possible saving if barges of, say, 1,500 tons capacity 
could navigate directly to Haverhill, Lawrence, and Lowell. The 
rail freight rate on coal from Boston and Salem (which immediately 
adjoins Beverly) is about 85 cents per ton to Haverhill, Lawrence, 
and Lowell. A favorable report is now before Congress for a project 
of 24-foot depth at mean low water at Beverly, which already has a 
large and efficient coal-distributing plant, and supplies by steam 
railroad, street railway, and automobile trucks a large zone in that 
locality. The colliers of the New England Coal & Coke Co. and 
Coastwise Transportation Co. even now, with only 18-foot depth of 
water at mean low water at Beverly, do, with some difficulty, get in 
there on the top of the tide, and if the 24-foot channel eventually 
comes to Beverly it is most probable that it will become a very 
important coal-distributing point, with a much more extended zone 
of distribution, reaching these Merrimack River cities, as they are 
now reached from Salem, a distributing point for coal brought in 
by barges. 

It appears to me that the river improvement is going to be^at a 
serious disadvantage, limited, as it will be, to 1,500-ton barges draw¬ 
ing 17 feet of water, in competition with vessels carrying 10,000 tons 
to deep-water coast ports having efficient and economical distribut¬ 
ing plants for reshipping to points not far distant inland. It may 
be true that the 17-foot barge will be continued in service to some 
extent to serve special localities, but it is quite possible that the result 
will be a repetition of the experiences in other instances along the 
North Atlantic coast, where improvements were made some years ago 
on the basis of 12 and 14 foot draft barges, Avhich have almost disap¬ 
peared in coastwise traffic, and the shippers are now forced to use the 
few lighter draft barges, say 15 or 16 feet, only partially loaded and 
paying freight on the entire cargo-carrying capacity of the vessel. 

Colonel^ Corps of Engineers. 

LETTER OF THE WILLIAM CRAMP & SONS SHIP & ENGINE BUILDING CO- 

Philadelphia. Pa., August 31,1916. 

Sir : We are in receipt of your favor of the 30th instant in reference to the 
improvements in rivers and harbors along the North Atlantic coast. 

In reply we beg to say that it is onr opinion for the coastwise service there 
will always be a large number of barges and light-draft steamers of about 17 to 
20 feet engaged in such traffic. 

The modern ocean-going cargo vessels, however, require cargo to accommodate 
from 24 to 20 feet draft. 

A^ery respectfully, 

The William Cramp & Sons Ship & Engine Building Co., 

H. W. Hand, Vice President and General Manager. 

Col. W. E. Craighill, i 

Corps of Engineers. __ 

1 The above indorsement was prepared by direction of the district engineer officer, but 
was not signed by him owing to his illness and subsequent death. 






84 


MERRIMACK RIVER;, MASS. AND N. H. 


LETTER OF WILLIAMS & PETERS. 


New York City, September 1,1916. 


Dear Sir : We beg to acknowledge receipt of your favor of the 30th ultimo, In 
which you ask if we think there will be a sufFicient number of barges not exceed¬ 
ing 17 feet draft to accommodate the large volume of tonnage going to coastwise 
ports. 

While the tendency, both on the Atlantic seaboard and on the Great Lakes, is 
for increased size of vessels, we believe there will be a sufficient number of 
barges in service to take care of this tonnage, even if it is necessary for the coal 
companies owning such docks to build them themselves; they can not afford to 
have their whole plant put out of commission, or even embarrassed, by such a 
situation. Freights have ruled so low for the past few years that there has 
been very little inducement for the building of new barges, so that th^re is an 
actual scarcity at all Atlantic seaports at the present time. 

Yours, truly. 


Williams & Peters. 


Col. W. E. Craighill, 

Corps of Engineers. 


letter of fore river shipruilding corporation. 


Quincv. Mass., September 1,1916. 

Sir : Answering your letter of the 30th ultimo, while I have not given this 
subject a great deal of study, it seems probable to me that the development of 
our rivers and harbors will probably not be such as to permit of the utilization 
of only large deep-draft barges. 

For instance, the Erie Canal will, when completed, bring into existence an 
enormous number of barges of limited draft but with sufficient carrying capacity 
and seagoing quafities to permit them to operate through Long Island Sound and 
up the New England coast. These barges are limited to 12-foot draft. 

It would seem to me that there will probably be a number of other ports 
where a depth of 17 to 20 feet could be maintained at comparatively small cost, 
and where a deeper channel would be prohibitive, that would offer sufficient 
field for a type of barge intermediate between the Erie Canal barge and the very 
deep-draft one. While, of course, as harbors deepen and more receiving and 
shipping points are available the tendency will be wherever practicable to go to 
even larger barges than the 24 or 26 foot ones that are at the present time quite 
popular. 

So far as there being a large number of barges still in service that will use the 
17-foot channels, it seems to me that this is surely guaranteed by the Erie 
Canal traffic, which I expect to see assume very large proportions. 

Very truly, yours. 


Col. W. E. Craighill, 

Corps of Engineers. 


.1. W. Powell, President. 


LETTER OF I.EHTGTI VALLEY RAILROAD CO. 


.Tersey City, N. .1., September 1, 1916. 


Dear Sir: I have your favor of the 30th instant and will be glad to answer 
your inquiry so far as it is possible for me to do so. 

Wliile it is true that coal barges are built to very large capacities, those 
drawing 24 and 26 feet are usually converted vessels and were not built for 
barges. There is a certain trade that can not be served with large barges. In 
all of our trade to easteni ports we find that a barge of about 1,600 tons 
capacity, or 16 to 17 feet draft, is the barge best suited to the needs of our 
customers. In other words, while they can handle 1,500 to 1,600 tons of coal 
in one barge, there are a great many yards that can not handle 2,000 tons or 
more. This clearly shows the necessity for barges of light draft as well as 
for those of deep draft. Where there is much commerce in and out of any 
port it would seem that they would require more than 17 feet of water, as the 
traffic is constantly growing and the depth of other vessels than those par¬ 
ticularly specified is increasing. 

Yours, truly. 


.1. M. Cherry, 

Superintendent of Floating Equipment. 
Col. W. E. Craighill, Corps of Engineers. 




MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


85 


LETTER OF C. W. CHADWICK & CO. 


New York, September 6, 1916. 
Sir : Yours of the 30th instant, re draft of barges, etc. 

In reply beg to state that the writer is of tlie opinion that barges have come 
to stay. It is an economical mode of transporting cargoes by water, and the 
writer is of the opinion that there will be increasing number of barges both 
17 feet under and 17 feet and over. 

Yours, very truly. 


Col. W. E. Craighill, Corps of Engineers. 


C. W. Chadwick Co. 


LETTER OF STANDARD TRANSPORTATION CO. 


New York City, September 5, 1916. 

Dear Sir: Answering your favor of August 30. 

The tendency is to increase the draft of coasting vessels, barges, and 
steamers, the latter in a great measure superseding the barges in transporta¬ 
tion, and all-water transportation naturally tends to the deepest draft for the 
sake of economy. 

Even with barge transportation it should be borne in mind that a seagoing 
vessel must do the towing, which rarely draws less than 17 feet, indicating 
'this to be the natural limit of improvements for harbors where these vessels 
are to operate. 

How far harbor improvements of 17 feet or greater are justified depends 
largely upon the local requirements of the river that is under consideration, 
as, for example, in the port of New York, an otherwise exceptional port for 
the entry of all classes of vessels, many of our adjacent streams can barely 
accommodate vessels of limited draft. How far the improvements to these 
streams are justified would seem to depend largely upon the amount of 
business. 

Along our coast are many ports restricted by the entrance channel. 

Yours, truly, 


R. C. Veit. 


Col. W. E. Craighill, Corps of Engineers. 


letter of the TEXAS CO. 

New York, September 5, 1916. 

Dear Sir: I have for acknowledgment your valued communication of 
August 30. 

It seems to me that the dispositions of shipowners, influenced or perhaps 
governed by the necessities of the times, are departing from the use of light- 
draft vessels. 

The record of shipbuilding surely indicates the practical abandonment of the 
building of small vessels with comparatively light draft for commercial pur¬ 
poses. I presume there will always be some special trade.s in which com¬ 
paratively small and light-draft vessels will bo used, but I am very strongly of 
the opinion that as ocean-going vessels capable of carrying their full dead¬ 
weight, or a draft of 17 or 18 feet, are wrecked or worn out, they will disappear 
as a class from the ocean and will be supplemented by vessels requiring from 
25 to 30 feet of water. I have placed the maximum at 30 feet because, in my 
opinion, for genernl trading this will suffice for a number of years, except in 
special cases, because of such limitations in the ports of the world, including 
the ports of the United States, and because of the fabulous sums that will be- 
involved in bar and harbor improvements to make vessels of a greater draft 
entirely serviceable for world-wide or even our own coasting trade. 

I think you will find that most of the tonnage now building and in contem¬ 
plation requires more than 25 feet of water for their full dead-weight carrying 
capacity, but that all can carry their full cargo on 30 feet of water, or some¬ 
thing in between 25 and 30 feet. 




86 


MERKIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


If I were called upon to pass on a project for harbor improvement that would 
involve the dredging of a channel, contemplating the use of vessels drawing 
when fully loaded 17 or 18 feet, I would report adversely unless it was a very 
special case. 

In my estimation, a 17 or 18 foot channel is deeper than is necessary for 
lighterage facilities, but is not sufficient for ocean-going vessels; thus, in my 
opinion, it would be an extravagant channel contemplating the use of lighterage 
facilities and would be practically a waste of funds contemplating the use of 
ocean-going vessels- 

Yours, very respectfully, 


W. A. Thompson, Jr., 
Manager, Marine Department. 


Col. W. E. Ceaighill, 

Corps of Engineers. 


LETTER OF BERWIND-WHITE COAL-MINING CO. 


New' York, September 7, 1916. 


Dear Sir: Regarding your letter of August 30, we beg to state that in our 
opinion it would be unwise for the War Department to undertake to dredge 
certain North Atlantic coast and river harbor ports based on a depth of only 
18 feet at mean low water. For years past the demands for larger ocean-going 
const craft have grown, and the tendency is to enlarge the sizes of barges and 
other vessels, with the corresponding increase in draft. "We feel that in order 
to meet the near future requirements, the contemplated dredging to be done by 
the department should be based on a depth of at least 26 feet at mean low water. 
At the present time there are barges and other vessels, recently constructed, 
drawing 24-26 feet, and the old tonnage when worn out will surely be re¬ 
newed on the larger scale of tonnage and increased draft. 

This is merely an expression of our views, and we, will be glad to answer any 
of your further inquiries in regard to the matter. 

Very truly, yours. 


Col. W. E. Ceaighill, 

Corps of Engineers. 


John E. Berwind, Vice President. 


LETTER OF NEW YORK SHIPBUILDING CO. 


Camden, N. J., September 8, 1916. 


Dear Sir: We have yours of August 30, concerning the matter of increasing 
the depth of various rivers and harbors on the North Atlantic Coast, on account 
of the increased draft of vessels. 

We may say that there is naturally an increase in draft and size of all ves¬ 
sels as time goes on. We doubt, however, whether the barges in use along the 
coast will increase in number or size. 

While we have built a considerable number of barges, they have been of a 
type not exceeding 18 feet in draft, and for a number of years we have not 
built any barges whatever, but have built a very considerable tonnage of steam 
vessels, which are engaged in the coastwise coal-carrying trade, and which, of 
course, have to run between well-established points, where there is sufficient 
draft of water to accommodate the vessels, carrying cargoes up to possibly 
10,000 tons. We are even building one collier of 12,000 tons. 

We understand that you wish us to give you our view as to the probable 
course of vessel construction for coastwise business, and have to say that such 
business as we have done, or have any prospect of, indicates the probability of 
more cargo, especially coal being carried in steam vessels between established 
terminals, and does not point to the same proportion of barge construction as 
has obtained in the past. 

Very truly, yours, 


New York Shipbuilding Co., 
H. A. Magoun, Vice President. 


Col. W. E. Craigpiill, 

Corps of Engineers. 




MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 

LETTP]R OF NEW YORK, ONTARIO & WESTERN RAILWAY CO. 


87 


Weehawken, N. J., September 26, 1916. 

Dear Sir: Answering yonr circular letter of August 30. 

We have disposed of our deep-draft barges because they are not suitable for 
our trade, and we do not expect to have any more. The greatest draft of any 
of our boats at the present time is 19 feet. 

I do not think the time will ever come when a boat drawing from 15 to 17 
feet will not be a most suitable and popular boat in the coal trade. 

Yours, truly, 

B. P. Hanfield, 

Shipping Agent and Superintendent of Floating Equipment. 

Ool. W . E. Craighill, 

Corps of Engineers. 


LETTER OF COASTWISE TRANSPORTATION CO. 


Boston, Mass., September 28, 1916. 

Dear Sir : In reply to your letter of August 30 and your letter of later date. 
I note in your letter that the tendency in the past 15 or 20 years has been to 
greatly increase the draft and cargo-carrying capacity of coal barges and other 
similar craft so that there are now 24 and 26 foot barges. 

In reply would say I do not think there will be any barges built that will have 
a draft of 24 to 26 feet of water. INIost barges of this draft are old ships cut 
down. All the later barges being built will have a draft from 17 to 22 feet. 
Steamers with a draft of 20 to 28 feet are fast taking the place of barges and 
sailing vessels. 

Very respectfully. 


Col. W. E. Craighill, 

Corps of Engineers. 


Coastwise Transportation Co., 

J. G. Crowley, 

General Manager and Treasurer. 


LETTER OF SUSQUEHANNA COAL CO. 


New York, Oetober 2, 1916. 


Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of September 22 regarding draft of barges 
in the coal trade on the Atlantic coast, would say that so far as the anthracite 
trade is concerned it is the opinion of the writer that there will always be as 
many, if not more than at present, barges of 17-feet draft, but in the bituminous 
trade it is doubtful whether in a very few years there will be any barges hav¬ 
ing a draft of less than 26 to 28 feet. 

Yours, truly, 

Wm. H. Lewis, 

Superintendent of Construction and Repairs. 


Capt. P. B. Downing, 

Corps of Engineers. 


LETTER OF THE CONSOLIDATION COAL CO. 

Baltimore, Md., Oetober 6, 1916. 

Col. W. E. Craighill, 

Corps of Engineers. 

Dear Sir : Your communication of August 30, in regard to the depth of water 
at North Atlantic ports, was referred to me, and I sent it to Mr. R. C. Gil¬ 
lespie, our manager at Boston, with request that he reply to you direct. 
About this time he was taken ill and shortly afterwards was compelled to go 
away on a long vacation, which accounts for the failure to reply. 

When the proper facilities for rapid loading and unloading can be pro¬ 
vided, the economical way to handle coal from Chesapeake Bay ports to New 
England is in large steamers carrying from seven to eight thousand tons, with 





88 


MEEKIMACK KIVEE^ MASS. AND N. H. 

a draft of from 26 to 28 feet. There is, however, a large trade in New Eng¬ 
land that requires light-draft vessels, where the unloading machinery would 
not justify the employment of the large steamer. This trade has heretofore 
been taken care of by coal barges drawing from 16 to 18 feet, towed by tug¬ 
boats. 

Many companies that run fast passenger and freight steamers seem to think 
that sailing vessels and barges have no right on the ocean. They have worked 
up public sentiment to a considerable extent, and they are apparently doing 
everything they can, through governmental restrictions, to drive them off the 
sea. Unless the Government regulations become too burdensome, however, these 
coal barges will continue to run for a great many years, and it would therefore 
seem to be poor economy to provide for a greater depth of water than 18 
feet, so far as the coal industry is concerned, at New England ports, except 
Boston, Portland, and, possibly, Portsmouth and Providence^ I think it can 
be safely said that an 18-foot channel should be provided everywhere in New 
England, unless the expense is so great as to make it a clearly uneconomical 
expenditure. 

While the above remarks apply only to the coal trade, with which I am 
familiar, I have every reason to believe they will probably fit the transportation 
of other commodities as well. 

Yours, very truly, 

W. L. Andrews, 
Manager of Transportation. 


LETTER OF THE PHILADELPHIA & READING TRANSPORTATION LINE. 

Port Richmond, Philadelphia, October 17, 1916. 

Dear Colonel: Following up my letter dated 2d instant, in acknowledgment 
of your two letters dated August 30 and Septeriiber 22, on the subject matter of 
the probable tendencies regarding the draft of seagoing barges in the future, 
and further in connection therewith, we have to say that the question you raise 
is rather a complex one, as it is difficult to foresee just what the future has in 
store for us with respect to requirements as to draft of seagoing barges engaged 
in the coastwise trade. 

Perhaps a retrospect of what we have done in the past and are now doing as 
regards sea-barge equipment, carrying capacity, and draft loaded would give the 
basis for the most intelligent reply to your inquiry. We operate at the present 
moment sixty-six (66) seagoing barges, classified as follows, together with their 
draft loaded, viz: 


Class. 


A 

B 

C. 

D 

E 


Num¬ 

ber. 

Draft 

loaded. 

3 

Ft. in. 
15 6 

7 

16 0 

15 

14 0 

36 

17 0 

5 

20 0 


Building 6, Class D, 17-foot draft 


66 

6 


Total 


72 


It will here be noted that of a fleet of 72 vessels, 67 of them, or 93 per cent, 
are of draft 17 feet and less. The Class D barge, carrying 1,500 tons on a 17- 
foot draft, is, from our experience, most in demand by the trade and, conse¬ 
quently, more popular than any other type or class of vessels engaged in coast¬ 
wise traffic. Barges of a lesser draft than 17 feet and of consequently less- 
carrying capacity are only in demand for shoal-water points and are unprofit¬ 
able, as a rule, to operate. 

As regards the reference in your letter of August 30 to the tendency in the 
past 15 or 20 years to greatly increase the draft and cargo-carrying capacity 
of coal barges, we may say that however this has been with other vessel owners, 
we have not followed along these lines; we have been operating seagoing barges 



















MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


89 


for the last 27 years; the greatest draft vessel we now operate is the Class E 
barge, 3,000 tons carrying capacity on a 20-foot draft. We operate but 5 of this 
class in a fleet of <2, and it is not likely that we will ever exceed this, as we feel 
that our Class E barge has about reached the limit in size, capacity, and draft 
in barge construction. 

It would appear to us that an 18-foot draft at mean low water will no doubt 
be sufficient for barge operation in the future, as that depth at low water means 
from 26 to 28 or 30 feet at high water between Cape Cod and Bangor, Me. It 
is possible that the future may develop the necessity for an intermediate barge, 
carrying 2,000 to 2,500 tons, but the Class D and Class E barge operated by this 
company will, we think, in all probability become eventually the minimum and 
maximum cargo-carrying draftloaded vessel, at least by this company. 

It is true, as you say in your note of August 30, that there now are barges 
drawing from 24 to 26 feet of water, but they are not barges that were built 
for the coastwise carrying trade; they were cut down or reconstructed from 
square riggers or old steamships; these will pass out in the near future. 

In conclusion it is our opinion that the demand for barges not exceeding 17 
to 18 feet draft, loaded, and of a carrying capacity of 1,500 tons, or thereabouts, 
will warrant the perpetuation of this type and class of vessel, and that there 
will remain in operation in the coastwise trade in the years to come a sufficient 
number of such barges not exceeding 17 or 18 feet in draft that would warrant 
the contemplated improvements of rivers and harbors along the North Atlantic 
coast as proposed, based on a depth of 18 feet at mean low water. 

If our views on this subject matter will be of aid to you in the matter you 
have in hand, we are glad to have been of service. 

Very truly, yours. 


Col. AV. E. Ceaighill, 

Corps of Engineers. 


O. H. Hagerman, 
Shipping and Freight Agent. 


LP:TTER of HON. JOHN JACOB ROGERS, M. C. 

Lowell, Mass., Eo^'ieniher 14, 1916. 

My Dear Gen. Black : On September 5, last, at a conference at which were 
present Congressmen Phelan and Gardner and I, representing the various sec¬ 
tions of the valley of the Merrimack River in Massachusetts, you discussed the 
report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors which had in June 
recommended the improvement of the Merrimack River from Lowell to the sea 
and which at the time was before you for approval or disapproval. You stated 
to us that there were several points upon which you wished further information 
before you reached a final decision. After you had indicated these several 
points we asked for time in which to collect and present to you evidence bearing 
upon them, and you granted' us until October 15, last. The labor and time 
involved in the collection of this supplementary material proving more con¬ 
siderable than we had anticipated, we in October obtained an extension until 
November 15. 

We herewith respectfully present the results of our supplementary investiga¬ 
tion dealing particularly with the points upon which you desired information. 

A. 

Attitude of business and industrial interests of Merrimack Valley. 

At our conference you referred to the importance of ascertaining accurately 
the sentiment of our local industries toward this project and stated that unless 
there was a very definite desire on their part that the river should be developed, 
you saw no reason why the Federal Government should be called upon to make 
the large necessary appropriation. Recognizing the importance and propriety 
of informing you fully on this point, we have taken up the matter with the 
principal indukries of Lowell and Lawrence, which are much the largest cities 
on the banks of the Merrimack. 

Lowell: The Lowell Board of Trade on September 18, last, sent out 48 letters 
to the larger corporations of Lowell, asking for their opinion. I append a 
copy of this letter marked “ Exhibit A.” ^ A summary of our “ referendum ” 


1 Not printed. 




90 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AKD N. H. 


is appended as “ Exhibit B.” ^ In response to our 48 letters, 39 replies were 
favorable, 3 were unfavorable, 1 was noncommittal, and 1 declined to answer. 
Four failed to reply at all; 2 of these 4 are, however, subsidiaries of the Ameri¬ 
can Woolen Co., which, as I shall later show, was already recorded in favor. I 
append as a part of “Exhibit B ” the original replies. It should be said that we 
sought to reach every large consumer of coal in the city of Lowell entirely with¬ 
out regard to its attitude or supposed attitude towafd the project. The scope of 
our inquiry may be learned from the fact that the replies are from concerns 
employing some 32,000 persons. We feel that this voluntary indorsement of the 
Merrimack River project by the overwhelming majority of the large Lowell 
consumers of coal conclusively establishes the demand, so far as Lowell is 
concerned, for the development. 

As indicating that coal is by no means the only qommodity by which the river 
channel would be utilized, we call your especial attention to the letter of the 
Consolidated Rendering Co., with two branches in Lowell, and itself a sub¬ 
sidiary of Swift & Co., of Chicago, which intimates that a considerable propor¬ 
tion of its Lowell tonnage of 100,000 tons a year would arrive at and leave 
Lowell by water if the Merrimack were made navigable. Although for con¬ 
venience we have emphasized coal transportation, upon which we anticipate 
an average freight saving of at least 50 cents per ton, we are confident that 
many other products, such as cotton, cement, and lumber, as well as rendering 
raw materials and products and other specialized commodities, would make 
abundant use of the channel if the Merrimack River project were developed. 
(See footnote 1, at end of letter, p. 95.) 

Lawrence: The parties in Lawrence interested in Merrimack River develop¬ 
ment adopted a somewhat different method of securing the opinion of the large 
consumers of Lawrence relative to Merrimack River navigation. I append as 
“ Exhibit C ” ^ two original petitions, strongly indorsing the navigation channel, 
signed by the principal industries of the city of Lawrence. Those in favor, as 
in Lowell, include practically all of the largest and most important corporations 
of the community. There are, I am told, but two important corporations of 
Lawrence unrepresented upon the petition. 

One of them is the American Woolen Co., whose president, Mr. William M. 
Wood, could not be seen during the period when the petition was in circulation. 
However, it may be stated that the American Woolen Co. is in favor of the 
project, as shown by the fact that at the hearing on the project before the Com¬ 
mittee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives held December 10, 
1914, the consulting engineer of the company, Mr. William S. Whitney, appeared 
and spoke in favor. On page 31 of the official committee report of the hearing 
Mr. Whitney says: 

“ I am authorized by the American Woolen Co. to state that they are in 
favor of this project.” 

I am informed that the representative of the other company not represented 
upon the petition is not opposed, although he is not inclined to go so far as to 
sign a petition in favor. 

The showing thus made by Lowell and Lawrence is a remarkable one, consider¬ 
ing the obstacles which have confronted those favoring a navigable Merrimack. 
As the three Congressmen told you verbally, the water power of Lowell and 
Lawrence is controlled respectively by the proprietors of the locks and canals 
on Merrimack River (Lowell) and the Essex Co. (Lawrence). The engineer 
and chief executive officer of both of these companies is Mr. Hiram F. Mills, 
an eminent engineer. Mr. Mills has been throughout the only outspoken 
opponent of the project. While we have no wish to question his sincerity, his 
opposition may readily be explained upon the theory that as agent of the 
water-power companies he desires no changes made which can even conceivably 
impair in the slightest degree or even affect existing water-power conditions. 
We have felt that his opposition might, so far as the broader aspect of the case 
and general community welfare were concerned, be heavily discounted because 
of his own peculiar and individual interest in the maintenance of existing 
water-power conditions. In spite of his undoubted influence in such matters 
with the mills of Lowell and Lawrence which purchase their water power from 
the water-power companies of which he is the head, but four of the Lowell 
companies in the group are noncommittal or opposed, six being affirmatively 
on record in favor, and but one of the Lawrence group fails to be recorded in 
favor. The treasurer of one of the four Lowell mills not in favor is president 


^ Not printed. 






MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


91 


of the Locks & Canals Co.; the treasurer of a second is treasurer of the Locks & 
Canals Co. All four are very largely owned and officered by interests not 
identified with the Merrimack Valley, and I believe that there are but four 
Lowell men in all on the four directorates. 

The showing thus made by the majority of the very corporations making use 
of the water power of the river proves how baseless is the suggestion that the 
coming of navigation would adversely affect our great industries of the Merri¬ 
mack Valley. 

We could adduce, if it seemed desirable, an abundance of testimony from 
the press of the valley and from merchants and individuals of the various cities 
strongly and even enthusiastically indorsing the project. We assume, from 
your statement to us, that you are more concerned with the attitude of the 
large consumers and especially of our great textile manufacturers; we have 
therefore limited our inquiries as above indicated. 

B. 

Effect of improvemeyit upon water power. 

In our conversation with you and in your letter dated August 25 last to 
Col. Craighill you indicated that you desired information as to the amount of 
wmter consumed in lockage and an approximate estimate as to the loss of water¬ 
power interests due to lockage. 

In answering this question reference has been made to the records of both 
the Locks & Canals and the Essex Co., the former being the Lowell water-power 
company and the latter being the Lawrence water-power company. 

It should first be pointed out that there will of course be no loss of water 
power whatever at Lowell, with the head of navigation located at Hunts Falls, 
just below the Lowell mills. 

In Lawrence there will be a minute loss of power, though, as we shall show, 
this loss will be rather theoretical than practical. In order to reach a correct 
conclusion as to the theoretical loss we have consulted the power company 
engineers for data, and have been able to figure the actual loss of water power 
and the actual use of water per filling of the locks at the Lawrence Dam. 

Assuming that the largest of the locks will be used in accordance with the 
plans and specifications published in the reports of the investigating engineers 
we find that each filling of the lock will require the use of 12.8 second-feet of 
water figured on the working day’s flow, the working day being 10 hours. This 
is the equivalent of 37.6 horsepower at the Lawrence dam. The records of the 
Essex Co. furnished on page 78 of United States Geological Survey, Water' 
Supply Paper 321, give the daily discharge, in second-feet, of the Merrimack 
River at Lawrence in the year 1912, which, by the way, should be recorded as 
a dry year. You will note by consulting these figures that, except for a few 
Sundays in the summer months, the regular discharge of the river is several 
thousand second-feet in a day and that the 12.8 second-feet required for filling 
the lock once is a negligible amount of the fiow. 

On the 9th of April, 1912, the total discharge was 30,720 second-feet. The 
proportion of this required to fill the lock once is infinitesimal. Even taking 
July 13, 1912, when the total discharge in a day was at its minimum of 1,189 
second-feet, the filling of the lock still represents an extremely small percentage 
of the total discharge. The mean second-feet for 1912 was 6,174, and this, we 
repeat, was a year when dry conditions prevailed. 

We believe it is proper to assume, then, that the filling of the main lock at 
the Lawrence dam once each day entails the use of an amount of water of no 
serious worth to the water power company or to the mills. It should further 
be stated that in the months of the year when the river is high enough to 
permit water to fiow over the dam, indicating an unusable surplus for water 
power purposes, it is not proper to charge the filling of the lock with any use 
of water power supply whatever, as the water used for filling the lock comes 
out of water which is not used for power. During the past 17 years it is found 
that there has been a surplus of water on the average during five months of 
each year, and to produce this average there are some years when there is 
almost a continuous surplus, while the dry years serve to bring the average 
down. 

On the days when there is no surplus of water and when whatever is used for 
lockage can be directly chargeable as an actual loss of water power, the value 


92 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


in money of the loss of wnter power may be readily figured. The Essex Co. 
records show that the water power is sold to the users at $300 per mill power 
per year. One mill power equals 85 horsepower and the cost per horsepower 
per year is therefore $3.54. The mill year is on a basis of 280 days, for which 
the year’s charge of $300 per mill power is figured. Using this same basis for 
computing what part of the $3.54 per year per horsepower may be charged per 
day, the actual cost of the water used in lockage, per filling of the large lock, 
is again found to he a negligible sum, even though it may be increased suffi¬ 
ciently to cover the cost of substituting steam power to offset the amount of 
water power lost. The actual cost per filling of the lock on the water power 
basis would be 48 cents in round figures. For details concerning this computa¬ 
tion we refer to a letter from Engineer George Bowers (Exhibit P).^ 

We again call your attention to the fact that on many of the 280 days of the 
mill year there would be a surplus of water and therefore no loss. 

The basis of one vessel per day passing up through the Lawrence dam to 
Lowell has, for convenience in computing, been adopted; it may definitely be 
stated that one barge per day, 300 days in the year, each barge carrying 1,500 
to 1,G00 tons of coal, would serve to supply the city of Lowell with its coal, 
or at least that portion of it which would naturally come via the river. That 
other vessels besides the coal fleet would pass up to Lowell is unquestioned, but 
we feel that, even if the number of the daily fillings of the locks is considerably 
more than one. the cost of the water utilized for lockage remains at an incon¬ 
siderable figure. 

The advocates of the channel feel that the largest of the locks will not neces¬ 
sarily be the one regularly used. When the smaller of the two main locks is 
utilized, the resulting use of water is materially lessened, the smaller lock 
taking 4.4 second-feet of the day’s flow, which is the equivalent of 12.9 horse¬ 
power at this dam. 

It should be noted that the mills using water power at Lawrence develop 
steam and electric power totaling 90,348 horsepower, as compared with 12,329 
water-power horsepower, showing that, contrary to the prevailing impression 
concerning the cities of the Merrimack Valley, the canals furnish only about 
one-seventh of the power even to the mills which have an interest in water 
power. 

In the foregoing computations we have assumed a brimful lock, and have 
made no allowance for the displacement of the vessel being locked through; 
a proper allowance for displacement will many times over care for any loss by 
wastage, leakage, and evaporation. 

On all the evidence, therefore, we entertain no apprehensions that the estab¬ 
lishment of a ship channel will materially affect the water power at Lawrence 
or that the possible traffic to be carried can, by the wildest stretch of the imagi¬ 
nation as to future development, be a matter of concern to the users and 
owners of water-power rights. 

Let me recapitulate the points upon which we rely in this connection. 

1. As the project stops at the foot of the falls below Lowell, there will be 
no effect whatever upon Lowell power. 

2. As the only lock is at Lawrence, only traffic going above Lawrence (i. e., 
to Lowell) will adversely affect water power even at Lawrence. (See foot¬ 
note 2, at end of letter, p. 95.) 

3. As the average 17-foot barge carries some 1,500 tons of coal (see foot¬ 
note 3, at end of letter, p. 95), 450,000 tons of coal can be delivered to Lowell if 
but one barge a day goes up the river to Lowell the 300 working days of the 
year. This amount is in excess of the present coal consumption of Tjowell 
received via all routes. Even if the number of days during which, on account of 
ice, etc., coal barges could come upstream should be considerably reduced, it will 
be seen that the number of barges passing upstream through the lock at Law¬ 
rence will not, so far as coal alone is concerned, necessarily exceed one and a 
fraction per day. The determination of the period when ice conditions would 
prevent use of the channel is difficult. When the ice breaks up in the spring 
there might be a period of some days when navigation would be unsafe. So 
far as the actual thickness of the winter ice is concerned, it would probably sel¬ 
dom act as a barrier if traffic were passing through the channel daily. 

4. Of course each vessel would have to be locked down as well as" locked up. 
It is probable, however, that these could oftentimes be locked in pairs, so that 


* Not printed. 



MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


93 


additional use of water for lockage beyond that required for 
the single vessel going upstream. 

5. ^aly about 10 pei cent of all the power now developed at Lawrence is de¬ 
veloped L-om water power. All the mills, I understand, are fully equipped with 
steam oi electric power, so that they could, even if there were no water power 
at all,^ operate exclusively by steam or electricity. 

consumption of water for purposes of lockage is practically negligible. 
It the large lock be used it represents a cost of but 48 cents per filling. If the 
sma 1 lock be used it represents but 16 cents per filling. The amount in each 
case IS distiibuted among the various consumers of water power and is too 
minute e\en to be seriously considered. Indeed for half the year, when water 
m wasting oyer the dam, even the infinitesimal cost disappears. For detailed 
figuies showing the distribution of water, steam, and electric horsepower among 
the various industries of Lawrence, see “ Exhibit D.” ^ 


C. 

Draft of vessels using Merrimack Channel if developed. 

At our conference, and also in your letter above mentioned to Col. Craighill, 
you expressed interest in the question whether even an 18-foot channel would 
in the future be deep enough to accommodate the type of vessels likely to utilize 
the Merrimack Channel. 

In our effort to furnish some light upon this question I wrote first to the 
Commissioner of Navigation of the United States and by him was referred to 
several large carriers of coastwise freight. 

I append as “ Exhibit E ” ^ the answers to my inquiries. 

The Consolidation Coastwise Co. says in part, after referring to 26 and 27 
foot draft steamers, and to the large New England trade requiring 16 to 18 
foot draft coal barges: 

“ If it is found to be economically wise to provide an 18-foot channel from 
Lowell, Mass., to the sea for the purpose of taking care of the coal business 
exclusively, there is no necessity for considering a channel of sufficient depth 
to take care of the large steamers.” 

The Lehigh Valley Railroad Co., to whom Col. Craighill also wrote, furnishes 
me copy of its reply to Col. Craighill, and in its further reply to me says: 

“All of the companies carrying coal in connection with the railroads oper¬ 
ate a large number of barges from 1,500 to 1,600 tons, and that class of barge 
must necessarily continue in service because many of the yards can not take a 
greater quantity of coal than 1,500 tons at one time. 

“ These barges draw from 15 to 18 feet.” 

The Staples Transportation Co. says: 

“ My opinion is that with an 18-foot channel you could find plenty of tonnage 
to care for your coal trade in Lowell.” 

This company also states that the barges drawing from 21 to 26 feet are 
diminishing through losses and are not being replaced. A list of the fleet of 
this company is appended which shows that the draft of but 7 out of about 
30 exceeds 17 feet. The New England Coal & Coke Co. has a fleet of 14 barges, 
not one of which exceeds 17^ feet draft. 

The Philadelphia & Reading Railway Co. writes: 

“ There are some barges engaged in the coastwise trade having a loaded 
draft of 24, 25, and 26 feet, but these are not barges that were built for the 
coastwise-carrying trade. We think that it will be found that all of these 
long-legged craft were cut down, reconstructed, or converted from square rig¬ 
gers or old steamships into barges. These craft have no bearing whatever on 
the tendency to increase the draft of barges in coastwise traffic; they will pass 
out of sight in the near future. 

“ It is our opinion that the popular demand for barges not exceeding 17 
feet to 18 feet draft loaded and of a carrying capacity of 1,500 tons or there¬ 
abouts will warrant the perpetuation of this type and class of vessel, and that 
there will be remaining in operation in the coastwise trade along the Atlantic 
seaboard in the years to come a sufficient number of barges not exceeding 17 to 
18 feet draft to warrant the providing of an 18-foot channel and other proposed 
improvements in the rivers and harbors along the North Atlantic coast as 
proposed.” 


1 Not printed. 



94 


MEREIMACK EIVEE^ MASS. AND N. H. 


This company also points out that of its fleet of 72 vessels but 5 exceed 17 
feet in draft, and, referring to the large-draft barges of the Staifles Co., says: 

“ These barges are never loaded to their full or intended capacity; they are 
too long for their shape, and both were badly strained on their initial trip. 
It is not likely that any more of that type will be built.” 

We feel that all the evidence is overwhelmingly to the effect that the 17-foot 
barge is here to stay and that the proposed Merrimack River channel, in accom¬ 
modating this type of barge, will fulflll every commercial need for many years 
to come. 

We have previously offered detailed testimony to prove that owing to the 
absence of water competition the prices paid for coal in the Merrimack Valley 
are grossly disproportionate, the rate to Lowell amounting in some cases to as 
much as $1.20 a ton more than to Boston and the rate to Lawrence amounting 
in some cases to $1.35 a ton more than to Boston. In times of freight con¬ 
gestion, such as the present, our plight is even worse. I quote from an article 
in the Lowell papers of October 24 last: 

“ Coal goes up a dollar a ton this morning. The new prices are as follows: 
Broken, $9.75; egg, $10; stove, $10.25; No. 1 nut, $10.25; No. 2 nut, $9; buck¬ 
wheat, $7.50; Franklin, $11.50; Lehigh, $10.50. Owing to embargoes and 
traffic difficulties, it is now next to impossible for Lowell dealers to obtain 
any all-rail coal. The situation is influenced by the conditions at the mines 
and by the freight congestion of both railway and water transportation. The 
railroad embargoes cause coal to be shipped by circuitous routes, producing 
higher freight rates than normal. The retail dealer in Lowell is now unable 
to obtain coal direct from the mines.” 

Since October 24 prices have materially advanced and are now in the neigh¬ 
borhood of $12 a ton on most grades. Yet a dispatch from Boston, quoted in 
the newspapers of November 3, reads: 

“ COAL IS MUCH CHEAPER IN BOSTON THAN IN LOWELL. 

“ Boston, November 2.—Retail prices of anthracite coal were increased 75 
cents a ton here to-day. 

“ The new prices are: Pea, $8.50; furnace, $8.50; egg, $9.50; stove, $9.50; 
nut, $9.50; Franklin, $11.” 

Our Lowell newspapers of that same day (November 2) showed Lowell 
prices on coal as follows: 

“ PRICES IN THE RETAIL MARKETS. 

“ The fuel problem yesterday became more acute locally than it has at any 
time since the era of superhigh prices opened. 

“ Every grade of coal advanced, the prices varying from $14 to $10.75 a ton. 
Cannel coal goes highest, to $14, and egg, stove, and No. 1 nut reached the $12 
mark, an advance of $2 and $1.75 within a week. Lehigh is at $12.25 and 
Jeddo Lehigh is $13. No. 2 nut went up $1.75 to $10.75 a ton, and Franklin 
rose to $13.25. Cumberland .lumped to $10.75 a ton. Coke had not changed in 
price yesterday, although it was said a change is imminent. 


“ Coal. 


Lehigh_$12.25 

Franklin_ 13.25 

Cumberland_ 10.75 

Broken coal_ 11. 50 

Egg _ 12.00 

Stove_ 12.00 


No. 1 nut-$12. 00 

No. 2 nut_ 10. 75 

Coke-per ton 7. 75 

Otto coke_per ton 9. 00 

Jeddo Lehigh_ 13. (X) 

Cannel coal_ 14. 00 


AVe in Lowell have thus recently been paying some two to three dollars a ton 
more than Boston prices. This, we submit, is wholly a question of freight con¬ 
gestion and a condition vdiich would be obviated if the Merrimack were navi¬ 
gable. Our need of the channel is abundantly evident in ordinary times; it is 
supremely obvious in times of emergency and congestion. AVhile, as I have 
repeatedly said, coal furnishes perhaps the clearest example of our needs of 
water transportatic)n, many other commodities would, to our advantage, make 
full and profitable use of the development. 

The foregoing is transmitted, not necessarily as our final statements upon 
the questions raised but as, we trust, sufficient evidence to overcome any doubts 















MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


95 


which you may have had upon the points covered. If you desire further in¬ 
formation upon these or any other points, we respectfully ask that we be.given 
a^ further hearing and a further opportunity to present additional material. 
Nevertheless, we believe confidently that we have conclusively answered any 
objections growing out of the particular questions raised. 

President Robert B’. Harden and Secretary John H. Murphy, of the Lowell 
Board of Trade, have spent much time in compiling the material preliminary 
to the preparation of this letter and, indeed, have drafted portions of it after 
consultation with various hydraulic engineers. We are also indebted to lilr. 
George Bowers, chairman of the waterways committee of the Lowell Board of 
Trade; to Mr. Andrew B. Sutherland, of the Merrimack Valley Waterways Com¬ 
mission ; to Mr. George E. Rix, of the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, and 
others. I am authorized to state that Congressmen Gardner and Phelan concur 
in the views herein set forth. 

Respectfully, yours, 

John Jacob Rogers. 

Gen. W. M. Black, 

Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army. 


Footnote 1: The, Erie Canal in 1915 carried 1,858,114 tons of 
valued at $30,610,670. This tonnage was divided as follows: 


Anthracite coal_ 

Bituminous coal_ 

Boards and scantlings 
Pulp wood_ 


227, 082 
92, 238 
207, 852 
114, 588 


Stone, lime, and clay 
Miscellaneous_ 

Total_ 


merchandise, 

__ 641,142 

__ 575,212 


1, 858,114 


B^ootnote 2: If it be assumed that a portion of the freight to or from Law^- 
rence w’ould make use of the lock at Lawrence, a suitable allowance should be 
made for the additional lockages thus made necessary. 

B’'ootnote 3: In the desire to be conservative we have estimated on the basis 
of 1,500-ton barges. Many 17 and 18 foot draft barges (take, for example, those 
of the New' England Coal & Coke Co.) carry comfortably 2,500 to 3,000 tons. 
If the large capacity barges be assumed, the number of barges to Low-ell and 
hence, of course, the number of lockages at Lawrence can be materially less¬ 
ened—perhaps halved. 


War Department, 

Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

Washington, November 18, 1916. 

From: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army. 

To: The District Engineer Officer, United States Engineer Office, Boston, Mass. 

Subject: Merrimack River. 

1. I just had an opportunity to go over the indorsement on department letter 
of August 25, 1916, relating to the Merrimack River, Mass., which was prepared 
for Col. CraighilUs signature, but which was handed to me by Mrs. Craighill 
unsigned because Col. Craighill was too ill to consider the matter. The report 
appears to cover the additional information desired by the Chief of Engineers, 
but I note it refers to certain letters received from transportation companies 
which w^ere intended to be transmitted with the report wffien forwarded to the 
department. It is requested that these letters be supplied. 

2. Local interests were also given an opportunity to submit additional data 
covering the points raised by the Chief of Engineers, and a letter has just been 
submitted by Congressman Rogers, accompanied by a number of exhibits wffiich 
I have not yet had time to read. 

H, C. Newcomer, 

Colonel, Corps of Engineers, 

Aeting Chief of Engineers, U. S. Army. 


[First indorsement.] 


To the Chief of Engineers, 

United States Army. 


United States Engineer Office, 
Boston, Mass., November 20, 1916. 


Returned, with the usual second copy of the indorsement referred to, together 
with the original letters from the transportation companies, as requested in 
paragraph 1 above» 

Frederick B. Downing, 

Captain, Corps of Engineers. 












96 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


LETTER OF NEWPORT NEWS SHIPBUILDING & DRY-DOCK CO. 


Newport News, Va., November 21, 1916. 


Dear Sir : Referring: to your letter of August 80, which I greatly regret was 
mislaid and which has only come to light this morning, requesting information 
relative to draft of barges. 

Barges are in most part steamers or sailing vessels converted when old, 
ctlthough there are many new barges built. I think it likely that shallow-draft 
barges will be built to suit short voyages from a local center—say Boston for 
New England—as unloading devices for coal are improved to such an extent 
us to render transshipping practicable. 

This limited information I hope will reach you in time to be of some service. 

Yours, very truly. 


W. H. Benson, 
Assistant to the President. 


Col. W. E. Craighill, 

Corps of Engineers. 


[First indorsement.] 

# 

United States Engineer Office, 
Boston, Mass., November 23, 1916. 

To the Chief of Engineers, United States Army: 

Forwarded for consideration in connection with similar letters from trans¬ 
portation companies in regard to future draft of barges, forwarded with indorse¬ 
ment of this office of November 20, 1916, on E. D. letter of November 18, 1916, 
relative to survey of Merrimack River. 

Chas. L. Potter, 

Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers. 


letter of ESSEX CO. 

Lawrence, Mass., November 29, 1916. 

Dear Sir : The letter, date of November 14,1916, signed by John .Jacob Rogers, 
who is a Member of Congress from the Ijowell district, and addressed to you, 
has been published in the local papers, and, assuming that it is correctly quoted, 
there are some statements and assumptions that require modification. 

A recapitulation of the main points on which he relies is stated toward the 
close of his letter, and these are presented, with comments on the conclusions 
which are drawn, with the statement of facts which actually exist as far as can 
be ascertained. 

If further details are required we shall be ready to cooperate with your 
engineers as far as possible. 

Yours, respectfully, 

Richard A. Hale, 

Prin. Asst. Engineer Essex Co. 

Gen. Wm. M. Black, 

Chief of Engineers, United States Army. 

Memoranda of Ihe Essex Co. 

This data is stated in the letter of .John Jacob Rogers to Gen. W. M. Black, 
Chief of United States Engineers, November 14, 1916. 

Referring to the recapitulation of points in the latter portion of his letter: 

No. 1. —“As the project stops at the foot of the falls below Lowell, there will 
be no effect whatever upon Lowell power.” 

This is self-evident, as project stops at falls below Lowell. 

No. 2. —“As the only lock is at I^awrence, only traffic going above I.rawrence 
(i. e., to Ijowell) will adversely affect water power even at I^awrence. (See 
footnote 2.)” 

Footnote 2: “If it be assumed that a portion of the freight to or from Law¬ 
rence would make use of the lock at Lawrence, a suitable allowance should be 
made for the additional lockage thus made necessary.” 

The footnote 2 modifies the first statement that the only operation of the lock 
would apply to Lowell freight. 



MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


97 


The report of the Merriniack A^alley Waterway Board plans a landing wharf 
above the dam near the head of the North Canal at Lawrence as being the most 
available location for general freight. It is assumed that the freight to the 
mills would be taken care of by unloading in the rear of the mills. The general 
freight for the city would have to be unloaded either below the Lawrence Gas 
Co.'s property near the city farm and hauled miles to the city or locked 
through above the dam to a landing wharf provided somewhere near the dam at 
the head of the canal or river front. A portion of the general freight to Law¬ 
rence should be included in this lockage in addition to the Lowell freight 
already mentioned. To illustrate: Assuming the Arlington Mills should have 
water freight, the nearest point to their mill would be at a landing wharf above 
the dam. 

No. 3 .—“As the average 17-foot barge carries some 1,500 tons of coal (see 
footnote 3), 450,000 tons of coal can be carried to Lowell if but one barge a 
day goes up the river to Lowell the 300 working days of the year. This amount 
is in excess of the present coal consumption of Lowell received via all routes. 
Even if the number of days during which, on account of ice, etc., coal barges 
could come upstream should be considerably reduced, it will be seen that the 
number of barges passing upstream through the lock at Lawrence will not, so 
far as coal alone is concerned, necessarily exceed one and a fraction per day. 
The determination of the period when ice conditions would prevent use of the 
channel is ditlicult. When the ice breaks up in the spring there might be a 
period of some days when navigation would be unsafe. So far as the actual 
thickness of the winter ice is concerned, it would probably act seldom as a bar¬ 
rier if tratiic were passing through the channel daily.” 

It is assumed that an average of 1 barge of coal a day will go up to Lowell 
for 300 working days to provide the necessary amount of coal for Lowell. Re¬ 
garding the situation concerning the ice, the actual conditions are as follows: 
The river above Lawrence Dam begins to freeze over early in December and 
remains frozen over for a period of about three months. The ice supply of the 
city is generally obtained from the river and is cut when the ice is 10 inches to 
12 inches or more in thickness, which generally occurs in January and Feb¬ 
ruary. The ice breaks up usually early in March, and the following table for 
a period of years shows when the river was skimmed over and also when the 
ice broke up and went out: 


Date. 

River ffozen over above Lawrence Dam. 

Ice went out 
above Law¬ 
rence Dam. 

1 Rq4 . 


Mar. 5-11. 

180^ . 

Nov. 30, skimmed over. 

Mar. 21-24. 

1 RQfi . 

Jan. 25, ice 6 inches thick. 

Mar. 2-16. 

1RQ7 . 

Jan. 14’ ice 5^ inches thick. 

Mar. 9-13. 

1 ftQR . 

Dec. id. 

Mar. 3-10. 

1800 . 

.do. 

Mar. 13-17. 

IQDH . 

.do. 

Feb. 13-19. 

■sQni . 

Nov. 29. 

Mar. 11-13. 

1009 . 

Dec. 7. 

Mar. 1-3. 

1QO*^ . 

Nov. 26. 

Mar. 1-7. 

1004 . 


Mar. 22 -26. 

iQOp; . 


Mar. 19-27. 

1 QOf\ . 


Mar. 6-7. 

1007 . 

Before December. 

Mar. 18-26. 

1 QOft . 


Mar. S^15. 

1QOO . 


Feb. 22-23. 

1010 . 


Mar. 1-8. 

1011 . 


Mar. 14-15. 



Mar. 15-19. 

101*^ . 


Mar. 10-17. 



Mar. 5-7. 



Feb. 20-27. 



Mar.27-Apr.l 




Tlie statement is made that, as far as actual thickness of winter ice is 
it would probably seldom act as a baiiiei if tiafRc weie parsing 
through the channel daily. This would mean that an open channel of sufficient 
width would have to be maintained for 9 miles up to the foot of Hunts Falls 
throughout the winter, with interruption for a few weeks when the ice is 

going out. 

H. Doc. 1813, 64-2-7 
















































98 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. II. 

No. Jf .—“ Of course, each vessel would have to be locked down as well as 
locked up. It is probable, however, that these could oftentimes be locked in 
pairs, so that there would he no additional use of water for lockaj^e beyond that 
required for the single vessel going up stream.” 

The proposition of locking boats by pairs is economical if arrangement can be 
made to have them on hand without serious delay and long waits. Tliis woidd 
have to be determined by experience. The probability would be that during the 
summer and dry season the average lockage would l)e greater than during the 
winter months and the early spring, when there is a surplus of water. 

No. 5 .—” Only about 10 per cent of all the power now developed at Lawrence 
is developed from water power; all the mills, I understand, ai‘e fully equipped 
with steam or electric power, so that they could, even if there was no water 
power at all, operate exclusively by steam or electricity.” 

This statement is incorrect throughout. The relative amounts of steam and 
water power along the canals are as follows: 

Table No. 1. 



Full ca¬ 
pacity. 

Usual 

running. 

Per cent of 
capacity. , 

Steam power—indicated horsepower. 

Water power—net horsepower. 

75,998 
25,535 

43,310 

14,280 

57 

56 

Total. 

101,533 

57,590 


Per cent of water power. 


25 

25 





The above table (No. 1) includes all mills drawing water from the canals, 
both for power and for manufacturing purposes. 

There are certain mills that are driven by steam alone, using no water power, 
and excluding the.se mills the following table shows the power capacity of the 
mills that have combined steam power and water power: 


Table No. 2. 



Full 

capacity. 

Usual 

running. 

Per cent of 
capacity. 

Steam power—indicated horsepower. 

Water power—net horsepower. 

46,398 
25,535 

25,710 
14,280 

55 

56 

Total. 

71,933 

39,990 


Per cent of water power. 


35.5 

35.7 





This shows that the mills using combined steam and water power have a full 
capacity of one-third water power and two-thirds steam power, and that in 
actual running the same relation exists. Including all of the mills which 
develop steam power and water power the ratio is 25 per cent and 75 per cent, 
water and steam, respectively. 

The statement that only 10 per cent of all the power now developed in Law¬ 
rence is developed from water power is incorrect as applied to the mills using 
steam and water power along the canals. The Arlington IMills which are not 
located on the canals have a capacity of about 25,000 indicated horsepower and 
actually use about 18,000 horsepower. This included in the other mills would 
make about 100,000 total indicated horsepower and the water power would 
equal about 20 per cent of the total. There may be steam power used in many 
small plants about the city which would increase the steam power slightly, biit 
not to any great extent. 

The statement that the mills are equipped with steam power so that they 
could operate if there were no water pow'er is incorrect. A very few of the 
mills are equipped in such a manner to run temporarily by steam in case there 
were no water. Most of the mills, including the larger users, would be seri- 










































MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND K. II. 


99 


oiisly crippled, and, as running normally, there \Yould he a total deficiency of 
about 5,000 horsepower which could not be replaced by supplementary powei\ 
This deficiency would mean practically shutting down the mills, as various- 
departments are wholly dependent on the output of other departments. 

No. 6 .—“ The consumption of water for purposes of lockage is practically 
negligible. If the large lock be used, it represents a cost of but 48 cents per 
filling. If the small lock be used, it represents but 16 cents per filling. The 
amount in each case is distributed among the various consumers of water power 
and is too minute even to be seriously considered. Indeed, for half the year, 
when water is wasting over the dam, even the infinitesimal cost disappears. 
P''or detailed figures showing the distribution of water, steam, and electric horse¬ 
power among the various industries of Lawrence, see Exhibit I>.” 

In the early portion of the published report it is stated that, assuming that 
the largest lock as proposed by the investigating engineers were used, the filling 
once would require an equivalent of 12.8 s. f., computed on the working day 
of 10 hours. This would correspond in quantity to a lock 350 feet in length by 
45 feet in width and with a height of 26.3 feet. Assuming the water in the 
pond to be at Ref. 38 at least, the river below the lock would stand at Ref. 
9.7 feet. As a fact, when no water is flowing over the dam the water at the 
lock outlet would stand at about Ref. 6, making a height of 32 feet, or 518,400 
cubic feet, equivalent to 6 second-feet for 24 hours and 14.4 second-feet for 10 
working hours, which equals 0.58 mill power. 

The statement is made that 12.8 s. f. would produce 37.6 horsepower at 
Lawrence Dam. This would be on the assumption of 26 feet fall, which would 
produce 37.6 gross horsepower, or 0.44 mill power. 

The fall at this point during the dry period would average 30 feet, and with 
this quantity would equal 42.4 gross horsepower, or about 0.5 mill power, on one 
lockage. 

Permanent power is the power that was estimated to be available through 
every working day, or for 305 days in the year. Working days were at first 
counted as 16 hours long, but on all mill sites sold in the past 33 years they have 
been estimated as 12 hours long, being between the hours of 6.30 a. m. and 
6.30 p. m. 

For the past 50 years all mill sites that have been sold have the right to draw 
their designated number of mill powers upon paying $1,200 per mill power 
per year, and surplus power on all of these and upon all other sites have been 
sold up to 50 per cent of the permanent power to which they are entitled at the 
similar rate of $4 per day when used. 

Each filling of the lock would cost $2 on this basis, and the annual cost would 
depend on the number of lockages during the dry periods. It is reasonable to 
suppose that six months in the year would cover the period in which the use of 
the lock would affect the water power drawn by the mills, and any estimate of 
the annual loss of power would be dependent on the number of lockages during 
this period, which would probably be as many as three-quarters of the full 
number in each year. 

Richard A. Hale, 
Principal Assistant Engineer. 

In a letter to Capt. Downing, of September 15, 1916, the amounts of water 


drawn were stated by the Essex Co. as follows: 

Mill power. 

9f working hours (usunl working day), 5,000 s. f-200 

Remainder of time, 2,000 s. f- 80 


Total mills on approximately 12-hour basis-280 

^ The usual running, as stated in tables, was: 

Horsepower. 

I 204 mill power_14, 280 

1 If 80 mill power included, would equal- 5, 600 

i - 

I Net total_19. 880 


Making about 20,000 horsepower on 12-hour basis that are in use by the mills 
in ordinary working condition. 












100 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


LETTER OF HON. JOHN JACOB ROGERS. 


House of Representations, 
'Washington, D. C., May 29, 1916. 

Gentlemen : During my statement before your board last Tuesday, May 23, 
on the appeal from Col. Craigliill’s adverse Merrimack River report, I was 
asked by a member of the board whether I would approve a division of the 
project in such a way that the Federal Government should bear the cost from 
the sea up to a point just below Lawrence and the State tlie remaindei* of the 
cost, namely, the expense of getting into the Lawrence Pool and thence up to 
Hunts Falls, just below Lowell. At that time I was unwilling to make a iR)si- 
tive answer, because this suggestion was new to me and I had not accessible 
the figures to indicate the division of cost which would result. Since the hear¬ 
ing I have carefully considered the suggestion, and beg to submit this letter for 
your consideration. 

As indicated in the report of the Merrimack Valley Waterway Board (.Tanu- 
ary, 1914) and by Col. Craighill in his two reports, the items of cost are as 
follows: 


Lowell (Hunts Falls) to Lawrence Dam, including 20 per cent for 


contingencies_ $680, 400 

At Lawrence_ 921, 000 

Lawrence to Ward Hill_ 2, 72.5. 200 

Ward Hill to mouth_ 2. 750, 000 

Terminals, flowage rights, etc_ 3, 000, 000 


Total 


10, 076, 600 


Assuming the correctness of the foregoing figures, th.e share of th(‘ State, if 
the proposed suggestion were adopted, would be $680,400 plus .$921,000 plus 
$3,000,000, or a total of $4,601,400. The share of the Federal Government would 
be the remainder, $5,475,200. Under this plan, still assuming the accuracy of 
the figures, the State would pay about 45 per cent of the total expenditure 
and the Nation the remaining 55 per cent. 

I still feel that the river and harbor policy of the United States has been 
such tiiat the expense of the Merrimack River project should be borne largely, 
if not wholly, by the Federal Government, However, if your board is unable 
to reach this conclusion, I am now prepared to say that the above basis of 
division seems to me reasonably equitable, erring rather against the State 
than against the Nation, I respectfully suggest, and, indeed, sti-ongly urge, 
that the Federal interest in this river must necessarily extend to and include 
Lowell. The proposed basis of division, assuming that the Fedieral Government 
did its part and that the State failed to do its part, would mean that Lawrence 
would be very indifferently served by the improvement an<l Lowell not at all. 
Any Federal appropriation for the project up to the point just below Lawrence 
ought, therefore, to be expressly conditioned upon definite guarantees on the 
part of the State that it accept the project and obligation and complete its stip¬ 
ulated portion thereof. The foregoing apportionment would leave the United 
States free from any annoyance by water-power claims, by fiov>atge controver¬ 
sies and every other local vexation; it imposes upon the State a financial 
burden almost equal to that borne by the Nation; and it insures a complete 
project from the sea up to Lowell. 

I trust tliat if your board can not agree with our view, that the Federal 
Government ought to bear the entire expense, aside from the $1,000,000 already 
appropriated by the State, it may deem just and equitable the proposed plan. 

Very respectfully. 


John Jacob Rogers. 

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. 


Hearing Before the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, in Refer¬ 
ence to Merrimack River, frow Lowell to the Sea. Act of July 25, 1912. 
Merrimack River from I.,owell to Manchester. Act of March 4, 1915. 
10 a. m. to 12.35 p. M,, May 23, 1916. 

Col. Abbot, Col. Biddle, Col. Taylor, Col. Newcomer, Col. Winslow, Col. 
Flagler, and Lieut. Col. Keller were present. 

Hon. J. J. Rogers, M. C.; Hon. Michael F. Phelan, M. C.; Hon. Augustus 
1'. Gardner, M. C.; Mr, Robert F. Marden, president, Lowell Board of Trade; 










MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. 11 , 


101 


Andrew B. Sutherland, president of the INlerrimack Valley Water Board; Mr. 
Stephen P. Sherman, of Lawrence; Mr. AValter Coulson, of Lawrence; Mr. 
Daniel M. Casey, secretary of the Haverhill Board of Trade; Mr. Geo. R. 
Rix, secretary of the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce; Hon. Eldward H. Wason, 
of Nfjshua; ]\Ir. \Villiam P. Williams, engineer of the Massachusetts Harbor 
and Land Commission, appeared before the board in reference to the above 
subjects. 

Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, we have about 10 gentlemen 
here from Massachusetts who would like to speak, and we should like to ascer¬ 
tain, if we can, about what will be the maximum time that the board can 
spend in listening to the arguments. We shall confine ourselves, of course, to 
the time that you desire to give to us. 

Col. Abbot. We have a hearing at 12, but we have delayed you gentle¬ 
men ourselves for about a quarter of an hour, and you are certainly entitled 
to that. There are othere coming and we will ask them to wait until about a 
quarter after twelve. If you can get through about a quarter past twelve, 
we should like to tinish up by that time. 

Mr. Rogers. I trust the board will not feel unduly impatient. 

Col. Abbot. We want to learn all we can. 

Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. 

I will call first on Congressman Michael P. IMielan, of Ivynn, who is one of 
the three Merrimack Valley Congressmen. 


STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. PHELAN. 

Mr. Phelan. Gentlemen, I do not believe I will take over a minute. I am 
going to keep that in mind, too. 

It is not my intention to go into the engineering possibilities and the feasi¬ 
bility of the project and the probable saving in cost in various freight rates. 
There are other men here who have made a study of this thing—men who, 
I will say, have been doing it without any selfish interest. They have been dis¬ 
interested, public-spirited citizens who have gone into the thing with extreme 
care, and I think that since the time is limited it would be very much better 
to have two or three of those men allowed all the time they want. 

The principal thing that I am here for is to let the board know the great in¬ 
terest there is in the valley among the people at large. It is not confined to a 
small group of men or to any particular organization. It is a matter which in¬ 
terests the whole valley, a population, I think, of sometliing between three and 
four hundred thousand people; so that if this valley wei-e developed now as we 
desire it would confer benefits upon a great industrial center. I could talk for 
hours about the industries there, but I do not wish to take the time. If anything 
occurs to me which I think has not been understood I would like perhaps a 
minute later. 

I thank you. 

Mr. Rogers. The first extended remarks this morning will l)e made by Mr. 
William P. Williams, who is the engineer of the Harbor and Land Commission 
of the State of Massachusetts. 

statement of MR. WILLIAM F. WILLIAMS, ENGINEER OF THE ASS ACHUSETTS 

HARBOR AND LAND COMMISSION. 


Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I suppose that as an engineer 
talking to engineers I can not expect to give .you very much knowledge from 
a strictly engineering point of view on this subject that you do not already 
possess, but I would like to divide this subject into three phases and ask your 
consideration of this project in that broad manner: Pirst, in relation to the 
transportation problem as it confronts IMassachusetts; and, second, as to the 
^ipou various commodities that may be traiispoi'ted by ^vatel , and, thiid, 
as to the probable saving on the transportation of those commodities hy water 

as compared with transportation by rail. ... 

I shall not undertake to say a great deal about the purely engineering fea¬ 
tures except as I pass along, because, as I say, I think you must understand 

that more fully than I can myself. . . , , i . 

The recent embargo on rail freights in Massachusetts has shown beyond any 
question of doubt that the railroads in New England are physically unable to 
cope with any material increase on their normal capacity for transportation; 
and if it had not been for the assistance olfered hy watiM- lines to points like 


102 


MElUilMACK KIVEK^ MASS. AND N. H. 

Providence, New Bedford, and Fall River, or Boston, the most serious situation 
would have resulted, and no one can foresee how far the manufacturing indus¬ 
tries of Massachusetts might have been crippled. 

It is becoming more and more manifest that these water routes mu'<t be 
utilized to a greater extent for the carriage of bulky freight, and tlnit the 
problem with relation to New England is becoming a question of distribution 
from the coast inland rather than distribution from the interior outward. The 
greatei' part of the manufacturing centers of Massachusetts are located on 
waterways or on the coast. Of course, as you recall, Massachusetts was de¬ 
veloped from the sea. It was never developed by railroads, but it was de¬ 
veloped from the water; and tliat is one reason why rail carriage in Massachu¬ 
setts to-day is probably more expensive than in any other State of similar popu¬ 
lation and development in this whole country. 

When Mr. Mellen first came back, I might say—of course, he started in New 
England—he became president of tlie New Haven, and he made the statement 
that the question of handling freigiit in New England was one of distribution. 
As a matter of fact, the whole of New England was just simply a great freight 
yard, and he had to get away from the idea that he had learned in the West 
of trunk-line systems and tonnage-miles and all those factors that the West 
deals with in their great long hauls. So that it is the great question of dis¬ 
tribution ; and he appreciated the part that water lines had to play in the 
situation, and he proceeded very promptly to secure control of all the water 
lines in eastern Massachusetts. That has been subject to more or less investi¬ 
gation, as you know. The water lines, as I say, are the salvation of the freight 
situation in Massachusetts to-day. When an officer of the New Haven Railroad 
recently made the threat that if they were separated from their Sound lines 
they would carry all that freight by railroad, he was just simply making a 
statement that he knew could not be carried out in 100 years. A very large 
-amount of freight to Lowell and Ijawrence is shipped through New Bed¬ 
ford. I am going to speak of New Bedford perhaps rather frequently, because 
I lived in New Bedford a great many years, and I was more or less intimately 
connected with the development of New Bedford’s water facilities. 

Col. Ahhot. You were city engineer there? 

liTr. Williams. I was city engineer for 20 years. I took a great deal of 
pride in the fact that New Bedford, of course, was a seaport town many, many 
yeai-s ago. and probably known better throughout the world than almost any 
other similar port, or any port, for that matter, in the whole United States; 
but it apparently lost its grip on sea trade at one time and turned into a great 
manufacturing center. It has no\v, of course, begun gradually building up its 
sea tralilc on other and entirely different lines. 

It is true that just at present there is a peculiar situation in the water¬ 
carrying business on ac'count of the great war, and, of course, the taking out of 
freight in everything that has any tonnage, whether it is steam or sail, and that 
has resulted, of ('ourse, in a tJ'emendous increase in coastwise freights, so that 
the railroads at some points are really carrying more business than ever before. 

As a matter of fact, tliere has been considerable diversion of the water traffic 
in New Bedford, in some lines, to the rail, for that reason, and there has been a 
similar increase in other lines. 

From my point of view it is unfortunate that the railroads have taken this 
attitude toward the water cari-iers, because I think that the two should be 
coordinated and that they should work togi'ther harmoniously; because there 
is no reason why one should injure the other. I’ake. for instance, strictly coast¬ 
wise express service, which is bound to come sooner or later, and wdiich is 
bound to be a success. The completion of the Cape Cod Canal is going to be 
one step toward that development, although, of course, at the present time, 
the canal has not become as generally utilized as its builders hoped, but it is 
growing every day. I think, too, there has been a little lack of, perhaps, fore¬ 
sight or, perhaps, lack of money in not attempting to standardize river and 
harbor improvements. I think that is something that has got to be considered 
more or less; that harbor improvements have got to be built with an eye to 
the commerce they are supposed to meet, and there is no use in making a 
12-foot depth where the commerce of the place requires a IG-foot depth, be- 
caii.se, while the 12-foot depth might cost a great deal of money, if you could m>t 
get 12-foot cari-iers, you might just as well not have any. ‘ You have got to 
have depths that bear tlie i)roper relation to the commerce that you are seek¬ 
ing to secure. 

Col. Abbot. Just as it is with the narrow’-gauge railroad. 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


103 


jNIi*. Williams. Just exactly tliat, sir; and it is just exactly that situation. 
The tendency of the water carriers, of course, as you all know, in the coast¬ 
wise trade as well as in the foreign trade,-for that matter, is to deeper drafts 
and larg'er tonna.L^e. This is a disastrous tliin,!? now to the shoal harbors and 
the small ships. In that direction 1 am in hopes that you gentlemen will lend 
your assistance to severa.l of the projects that are now before you that are 
aimed to coordinate with this lunv barge canal, whi<-h, as you know, is founded 
on a 12-foot depth and brings into its scoiie the possibility of improvements like 
the improvement of the Connecticut River and the Taunton River. Unfor¬ 
tunately, I can not say that 1 can see just now how that could he extended to the 
Merrimack, because it involves quite a long ocean trip. But the idea is that the 
project should have some definite relation to some existing commerce that 
should he of sulficient size to induce increases of the carrying trade that will 
meet its requirements. ()f*rourse it would be a wonderful increase in the water 
shii>m(mts along this coast if something in the nature of a development of a 
great('r number of shoal carriers should be brought about. The shoal-water 
Iiarbors, some of them, have lost all their business, simply because the shoal 
watei’ carriers have gone out of business. I know of cases where there used to 
be a considerable commerce by water, and they have practically lost it all 
simply because they can not get vessels that will carry any cargo according 
to these standards of cargo, etc., on those shoal drafts. 

So much for the proposition as it fits into the grent scheme of transportation 
for New England, and especially, of course, Massachusetts, which, as you know, 
has a wonderful coast line with a wonderful number of harbors and several 
great rivers. 

Coming to this project and to the engineering phnse of it, of course you have 
before you the survey made by the IMerrimack Valley Waterway Commission 
which dealt with the improvement of the river from Haverhill to Lowell, and 
then you have Col. Craighill’s survey from the river to Ward Hill in Haverhill. 
I'hose are very complete, and I can not possibly add anything to them, so I 
am not going to undertake to dwell upon them. They have very clearly set 
forth in their reports that have been sent in, which of course I have before 
me, altliongh 1 have simply heard the es.sential details of Col. Craighill’s report 
read, and I-have not had an o])portunity to study it in detail. I have taken 
it for granted that until it is published it is not a matter for public ex¬ 
pression, and so I am only going to refer to those parts of the report that have 
been made more or less public in the discussions and meetings that have been 
held in the Merrimack Valley on this question. 

as I understand it, tliat is raised in the 
be secured, and he arrives at the conclusion 
with the cost. As I understand it, the cost 
of the improvement from the sea to Ward Hill, Haverhill, is estimated by 
the colonel on a continuous channel, a tidewater channel, to Ward Hill, at 
aboul .$8,000,000. and for a channel 200 feet wide and 18 feet deep at mean low 
water, or $2,750,000 for a dam at Lions Mouth with a dredged channel above 
the dam and to the sea of the dimensions I have stated. Tlie cost of the im¬ 
provement above Ward Hill to Hunts Falls, as estimated by the Merrimack 
Valley Waterway Board, is $5,448,000. But that included a turning basin and 
locks'at Ward Hill, whereas all but the turning basin would be eliminated by 
the construction of a dam at Lions Mouth, and therefore it is 
deduction of $1,117,000 from Col. Craighill’s estimate,, which 
total cost, with a combination of both schemes, to $7,076,600. 

(’ol. AnnoT. That is, up to Hunts Falls? 

Ml-. Williams. That would carry it to Hunts Falls. As 1 understand, that 
is as far as the iMerrimack Valley Commission dealt with it. They did not 
undertake to go through Lowell, although I think there has been some consid¬ 
eration given to that phase of the project, but I have not dealt with that 
at all. 

Col. (h-aighill further estimates that it may cost $3,000,000 to provide termi¬ 
nals pav damages, and change bridges, and in that way he arrives at the con¬ 
clusion 'that the total project involves $10,000,000, and upon that $10,000,000 
there should be shown an annual saving in freight charges equivalent to 4 
per cent on the cost, plus $100,000 for maintenance and upkeep, which makes 
a total of $500,000. And he gives, of course, considerable consideration, I sup¬ 
pose. to all the facts that were submitted to him, and he arrived at the con¬ 
clusion that he could not see a return of $500,000 per year on this investment. 


The most important question, 
colonel's i-eport is the benefits to 
that thev are not commensurate 


jiroper to make a 
would bring the 


104 


MEEKIMACK EIVEE, MASS. AND N. H. 

I^efore taking that up I would like to draw your attention to another phase 
of this (piestion which I think should have careful consideration, and that is 
how far this whole situation may be stated and considered in the light of its 
co!n{)aj’ability with known developments in that State. But perhaps before I 
go onto that I might say a word about two matters that I understand the 
colonel v.'as somewhat disturbed about—the effect of the pooling of water 
containing a large amount of sewage that goes into that river, and in this great 
pool which would be formed by the dam at the Lions Mouth, which would 
produce a very unsanitary situation. 

Of course, that is a matter worthy of consideration; there is no question 
about that. But you must remember that the fresh water density of the river, 
of course, will go on just the same. Of course, whatever tliat dilution is worth 
to-day, it will be still worth with that dam at the Lions Mouth, and you must 
remember that the flow of the Merrimack River, I understand, has never fallen 
but once below 1,200 second-feet, and it has gone as high as 90,000, and during 
several months of the year it is always flowing a large amount of water. 
That, of course, is bound to produce a very large dilution of sewage; but that 
is a problem that it seems to me Massachusetts has got to deal with itself, 
and it does not seem as though it ought to be given too much weight in its 
connection with this problem, which is one of transportation. The sanitation 
problem, as well as other local problems, will have to be taken care of by the 
IMerrimack Valley. I believe there is now a bill before the legislature—I do 
not know but what it has passed—that is leading to a special investigation of 
the disposal of the sewage in the IMerrimack Valley. 

YMu, of course, know that one of the earliest sand-flltration methods in the 
country, or in that State, was installed at Lawrence, and they have always 
been alive to the importance of this sewage situation; and while I do not want 
to lessen your labors, I think it is safe to say that IMassachusetts will take 
care of that suliject, whether transportation is offered to the Merrimack River 
or not. 

Col. Winslow. But if the improvement in the river applies to the cities that 
go to a considerable expense to build sewage-disposal plants, should not the 
additional cost of this sewage-disposal plant be considered as a part of the 
cost to the community of this improvement V 

Mr. Williams. I think not, because they have got to do that entirely inde¬ 
pendent of the river- 

Col. Kellee. Has not that question been under discussion for a great many 
years ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Col. Keller. Incidentally, and that is the diflicully you are now discussing? 

Mr. AVilliams. The city of New Bedford, for instance, had a sewage problem 
on its hands for years, and it took hold, and after a while it came to the ex¬ 
penditure of $1,690,000 to take care of it. If you had contended in IPO.") and 
1906 and 1907, when we were striving for water improvement, that that was unre¬ 
lated to the improvement of the harbor, we would Imve had a liard jol); but we 
took care of the j^wagG’ problem entirely independently of the harbor prolilem. 
You have got to do it; it is a sanitary question. 

The colonel is also disturbed about the effect upon the mouth of the river 
by the building of a dam at the Iflons INIouth. There are two jetties there, 
and you are atlempting, by the restoring of the flow, to gradually produce a 
deep-water channel, and I believe it is vrorking with a considerable degi-ee of 
success. I want to say that that is a question that I am not going to go very 
far into, because 1 realize that individually you all know more about that than 
I do, and your collective knowledge of jetties is far ahead of anything tliat I 
can say. I think you know, as I l)elieve 1 know, that the question of the opera¬ 
tion of a jetty is one that constitutes a problem in each locality, and that no 
man can lay down a cast-iron rule as to what will result from the building of 
jetties, or just how they should be built. It is a problem that has got to be 
dealt with and worked out according to the necessities as they appear. 

Col. Keller. Do you believe that that objection is a very real one? 

Mr. Williams. I think it is a real one, but I do not think that it is one that 
is beyond the power of adjustment, no matter whether you have a dam or not. 
The dam produces a little different situation from what would be produced 
if you did not have a dam, but you want to remember that there are several 
mighty good harbors in Massachusetts that have no river connected with them; 
and a river is not absolutely essential to the creation of a harbor. I would 
undertake to say thnt if you did not have any river there at all. and you had 


MEKIMMACK lUVER, IMASS. AND N. 11. 


105 


a natural dam at the Lions iSIoiith, you would not he seriou.sl}’ concerned about 
the harbor there. 

Col. Abbot. In that connection there is one question which the board would 
like to have nn answer to, if some one can irive it to-day, and that is the i 3 n])or- 
tance or nonimportance of having on the bar at low tide rlie same de])th that 
there is in the rest of the improvement at low tide. If you decrease the depth 
of jour bar, j'ou save a considerable cost in the im])ro\'ement; but hj^ having 
your coal barges arrive at the time of high water they can get over that 
entrance, and after they get in they will he .able to go up the rest of the river, 
provided the depth is given inside. 

That is a question that I should like to hear discussed if anj’hody has any¬ 
thing to say about it. 

Mr. WiLLiA]\rs. I will just say brielly on that that I believe eveiy harbor 
needs to have additional depth, whatever you may fix as its maximum depth, 
and all those restraints upon progress, in and out, of shipping are a decided bar 
to progress. Nobody can tell under what conditions he may arrive off the bar. 
If you arl■i^e off the I’ortland bar in a gale at low tide, you know what it means. 
Perhaps your friends, when they pass upon your many good qualities, will be 
sorry that you arrived at that particular time. 

I think, gentlemen, that the minimum depth, 18 feet—I think 18 feet has 
been selected—should be carried right from the sea into the river to make it 
a real, workable, evei\v-day proposition. If you reduce that depth, you put just 
that much load upon the efficiency of that improvement. 

I realize, of course, as an engineer, the desire to be able to show that all 
improvements can return a good, liberal percentage on the investment. Un¬ 
fortunately, engineers are not always able to do that. I think that is one 
reason why they are generally designated as a class of spenders and not of 
earners. 


I want to say a few words as to the comparability of these developments. 
It is only when you are dealing with a community like the Merrimack River 
cities, that have no adequate water transportation, that you can realfv show 
an actual saving between water rates and rail rates, because wherever there is 
a development, an adequate development at any water point, you will find that 
the rail rates and the water rates are exactly the same. 

For instance, returning to New Bedford: New Bedford has always had water 
rates. It did not make any difference whether it came all rail or all water; 
and if we had been obliged to show to Congress an actual saving between 
water rates and rail rates to justify the expenditure of half a million dollars 
in New Bedford, we could not have done it. But if anybody has any doubt as 
to the benefit of the improvement to New Bedford, why, they want to go there 
and see what has happened since that improvement started. 

There has been a saving in rates, of course. It is a fluctuating thing. It 
depends upon the law of supply and demand. For instance, take the rate on 
coal. There are times when it is 75 cents. To-day it is $2. There, of course, 
the railroad is a little at a disadvantage, because the railroad can not change 
its rates in a minute; but under ordinary circumstances the rail rate to New 
Bedford is 75 cents a ton, sometimes $1. But whatever it is, the rail rate will 
be the same. Of course, there is no difficulty to ship to New Bedford by rail, 
except possibly in the case of a carload of blacksmith’s coal or some special 
brand like that. It does not pay to ship any large lots. 

Col. Taylor. Does not any coal get in there now all rail on account of the 
rates by water? 

Mr. Williams. Oh, no; not even now it does not. The facilities are all based 
on water, and there are no rail connections with any mills in New Bedford 
excepting one. 

Col. Taylor. The rail rates would be cheaper than the water rates, now? 

IMr. Williams. They would be if you could handle i!; but the cost of handling, 
under the circumstances as they exist in New Bedford, would be too great. 

Col. Keller. Does not that argument, reversed, apply to the situation at 
Lawrence and Low^ell? 

Mr. Williams, Sure. 

Col. Keller. That is the very point that Col. Craighill raised. 

Mr. Williams. That is very true. I will come to that. 

There are certain improvements, for instance, in New Bedford, that could not 
have been anticipated at the time that project was under consideration any 
more than the improvements that may take place in Lowell and Lawrence and 


106 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 

Haverhill can he anticipated to-day. For instance, there has been a large con¬ 
struction of public warehouses in New Bedford. There is at least one so situ¬ 
ated that it can take advantage of the water and the rail, and then there is 
also still another projected by William Whitman, who, as you know—probably 
the colonel knows him—is a large owner in Lawrence and has built one of the 
biggest warehouses in the State, a warehouse that v/ill hold 500,000 hales of 
cotton. Mr. Whitman has a very large investment in New Bedford, somewhere 
in the neighborhood of—I suppose he has .spent $10,000,000 in New Bedford, 
and he did it entirely on account of its location with reference to water and 
water transportation. 

So that we can not argue that you must see the absolute return on certain 
commodities to justify an improvement of this kind, because they are mani¬ 
festing themselves in ways that you can not foresee, and they are going to be 
spread over a great many commodities. I know it is sometimes argued that 
any such development is really, after all, only the law of subtraction; that 
every profit means a loss to somel)ody, and if water transportation is given to 
a community that does not need it it means that somebody else has got to lose 
the benefit of that. There is the situation in Lawrence and Lowell. If the 
railroads have got facilities there, they have got to lose them. That does not 
necessarily follow, because the same rail facilities that are connected up with 
Salem and Boston can be connected up-with the water delivery point on their 
own water front and made just as effective at a tremendous reduction in haul, 
and all that expenditure that is taken up with hauling long trains of cars 
loaded with coal and cotton, the bulkiest freight there is, can be turned over to 
the smaller and more valuable freight, so that there is not anything lost by 
those changes, and they do not come in a minute, gentlemen. It takes years to 
bring all these things about; it takes years to get action that might result from 
Congress actually getting it completed, and it takes years to take advantage 
of it. 

The commodities that, on its face, appear would be the most affected by this 
improvement, of course, are coal and cotton and lumber. I might say it is 
axiomatic that a water point Avith adecpiate depth will always get its coal by 
water. It is true of Providence; it is true of Fall River; it is true of New 
Bedford; it is true of Boston; and of course it is true of Salem, because that 
is a great reshipping point. There are lots of other points where it is not true 
because they have no adequate depth. 

It appears that the rate on coal to Lawrence is normally 85 cents a ton more 
than to Boston and Salem points. It appears at Haverhill that it was 55 cents, 
and I understand that the recent change in the rates there has put it up to the 
same rate as Lawrence, namely, 85 cents, because the railroads realize that 
Haverhill’s water advantages were not what they suspected they might be. 
Railroads are quite human, you know, and perhaps the best evidence is shown 
in the fact that they will take advantage of situations. There is no reason why 
they should not. 

The annual con.siimption of coal that might be affected by water transporta¬ 
tion seems to he generally conceded to be from 1,000,000 to 1,200,000 tons, and 
the saving has been vailously e.stimated from 50 to 100 per cent of the differ¬ 
ence in rates. But that all depends, as I have said before, on the quantity that 
is shipped. Somebody has said there might be 50 per cent shipped. I do not 
think so; I think that if there are entirely adequate facilities every bit will 
be shipped by water except those few special brands that of course are not 
ever used by any community in great quantities. 

Col. Abbot. Provided that barges do not have to wait for the tide to get in. 

Mr. Williams. Exactly; and provided that they have, of course, boats of 
tonnage that are sufficient. But there is this advantage, that any community 
that can offer a tonnage in one commodity alone of 1,000,000 tons a year is 
going to get somebody tojiandle it. That, of course, is something that small 
communities can not do. Take Newbiiryport, for instance. It ought to have a 
better rate on coal, but they do not handle enough to pay anybody to provide 
for it. Comparisons are given between rates and they give a great deal of con¬ 
sideration to the difference in distance. They say if it costs 75 cents to Salem, 
why, of course, to go out around Newbiiryport and out around Cape Ann, up 
the river to Haverhill and Lawrence and Lowell, it means a great many miles 
more, and it is going to cost in proportion to that distance. As a matter "of fact, 
that is not the situation. There is a great inconsistency in coal rates on the 
coast. New Bedford and Fall River and Boston generally get exactly the same 


MERRJMACK RIVER^ MASS. AIS’D N. H. 


107 


rate, but there is a most decided difference in the haul going to New Bedford 
and Fall River or going to Boston—I think Portland pays only about 10 cents a 
ton more than Boston. Why should you add more to go to the mouth of the 
Merrimack River than it would cost to go to Portland? You will not have to 
pay it; that is all there is to it. Those things just adjust themselves according 
to the business and the depth of the water that is provided. 

C'ol. Aubot. Is not the difference between Portland and Newburyport, then, 
largely due to the fact that it can get in with larger craft? 

Mr. M'illtams. Yes, sir; at all times, as I understand it. There is no difficulty 
in getting into Portland at any time. I have never been in on the water side, 
but I understand that is so. Of course, you know. 

]\li-. ^lills, of liawrence, is a very able man and has made an estimate of the 
probal)le saving by water transportation. He arrives at one conclusion—that it 
will cost 10 cents a ton more to actually deliver coal at Lawrence than what 
it does now by rail. I think, as a matter of ordinary business sense, everybody 
knows thai will not be so. By another process of reasoning he arrives at a 
saving of 5 cents a ton, but under those estimates he takes into account the 
<lifferen(e in distance, which, as I say, does not hold, simply because you are 
going to get a rate to the critical point that is based upon the desire for business 
in the market, and you may get just exactly the same rate at the mouth of the 
Merrimack River as you have at the- 

Col. Tavlok. Do you not think that the rate to I^owell would be more than it 
would be to the mouth of the river? 

Mr. Williams. Probably there would be an increa.se on account of going up 
the river. 

Col. T-aylor. The bridges and locks and that sort of thing would be a very 
decide<l factor. 

]Mr. Williams. Yes; they would be a factor. For instance, if you will look 
over Maj. Pillsbury’s report upon the improvement of the Connecticut River, 
you will see that he makes an allowance of something like 15 cents a ton for 
taking coal from Hartford to Holyoke, going through at least one lock—I think, 
two—to get to the lower part of Holyoke; and making due allowance, as he 
says, for those expenses of going through a number of bridges, he arrives at 
the c(*nclusion that it ought to cost about 15 cents a ton more. I do not know 
why it should cost any more to go up the INIerrimack- 

Col. Taylor. Do not the number of bridges and the number of locks that 
you go through increase the cost every time? 

Mr . Williams. I do not think you would go through any more than you 
would on the Connecticut River. 

Col. Taylor. I think you would. 

Col. Keller. There are 15 bridges on the ^lerrimack. 

(\>1. Taylor. There are only two bridges between Hartford and Rpringtield. 

:Mr. Williams. Yes: but there are three—at least two—before you can get to 


are 15 on the ^Mei-rimack, according to Col. Craighill’s 


Holyoke. 

Col. Keller. CThere 
report. 

IMr. Williams. That is going to be a factor; there is no doubt about that. 
But at the same time you are going to get a tremendous business. It is going 
to be attractive, and, of cour.se, to a man who has never gone through bridges 
it looks to be a terrible obstacle. It is the same difficulty they are having on 
the Cape Cod Canal. They have to be educated to go through narrow water¬ 
ways and bridges without losing their vessels. 

Col. Taylor. They actually make a charge in going through bridges in Boston 

Harbor. , ^ 

Mr. Williams. Y'es; but the reason there is this, that the traffic over those 

bridges is so great that if a vessel can not come up and get through when it 
reaches the bridge it may have to wait a considerable time. 

Col. Abbot. They have closed hours. ^ ^ 

M»* Williams. Yes; that trouble would be true on the Merrimack River for 
most of the bridges. It is not true in places like Fall River, where they have 
two bridges, or New Bedford, where they have one. The right of way is given 
to the vessel. She goes through the minute she gets there. Everything else is 
.subordinated to her, and that can be done without any great detriment or 
hardship on traffic. At any rate, just as an opinion—and I do not say that it is 
better than anvbodv else's—I think that you may safely assume that a differ¬ 
ence in rale—and liow we are dealing with the ]iast, of course; we can not tell 




108 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


anything about ^^i^at the future will be. Nobody knows, of course, what is 
going to be the tinal outcome of the water-carrying business in this country. 
Undoubtedly it is going to be given a great deal more attention than it has been 
given in the past. But dealing entirely with the figures as they have existed 
in the past, a difference between Salem and Lawrence of 85 cents a ton, which 
you will understand is entirely upon large cargoes delivered to rail points and 
does not indicate the rate that goes to the average shipment, even on that basis 
a saving of 30 cents a ton can be fairly assumed; and when you take in all the 
smaller shippers who have to pay a very much larger rate, it is not unreasonable 
to assume that 40 cents on an average may be saved on the requirements in the 
coal line of those cities. 

Col. Winslow. AVill this be a saving, an actual saving, or a mere saving in 
freight rates? 

Mr. Williams. An actual saving in the cost of getting the coal. 

Col. Kelt.ek. By rail or by water? 

Mr. Williams. By rail or by water. 

Col. Keli.er. The rates will be the same? 

Col. Winslow. It will cost just as much to haul cord all rail afterwards as it 
does now. It simply means that the railroad company miglit pay it instead of 
the community. Is not that it? 

Mr. Williams. I do not think so. I think it is a question of readjustment. 
I do not believe it costs the railroads 85 cents to haul coal from Lawrence. 
If it does, they ought to go broke, perhajis. I suppose tliat is one reason wliy 
they are not making money. I had not thought of that. 

I think it is going into the future, as I say, too far for any man to undertake 
to say just what will happen. I think there is no doubt but what the railroads 
will have sufficient business to offset the loss of coal. I think if they lost 
every pound of coal they haul, they would lie better off. If you have had any 
experience with the New England railroads, either as a passenger or in getting 
freight, you would hold up your hands forthwith for anything that would enable 
them to give you better service. 

Cotton, of course, is a big commodity, and there are certnin artificial commodi¬ 
ties that control the shipping of cotton into New England. If you undertake 
to look for actual savings there you are going to have a great deal of difficulty. 
•You have got to have faith. 

Tlie Massachusetts mills all buy cotton on samples, and the mill has got to 
have the identical bale from which the sample was drawn. You can not pass 
in any other bale as being exactly like it; you have got to liave the identical 
bale. That results in cotton being bought up throughout the South in sample 
lots and hauled in .50-bale lots, by rail. I think the mills in Lawrence may buy 
in a little larger lots, but they do not handle quite so long staple cotton. 

I do not want any exception taken to that remark, because there is sometimes 
a little feeling between manufacturers. New Bedford ranks as being the first 
manufacturing center in line goods. 

It also follows that the man who sells that cotton can attach a draft to the 
bill of lading, and he gets his money before the mill gets his cotton. That, 
of course, has been the great reason why cott(m was shijiped all rail. 

Another thing, the mill man buys his cotton delivered. He does not pay the 
freight on it. It is the shipper that pays the freight, and so he has charge of 
the routing. The mill man has very little to do with it. A mill man once said 
to me—we were talking about this matter, and I asked him why he did not ship 
by water. He said, “I don’t luive anything to do with that. I huy my cotton 
delivered. I don’t care how they ship it.” I said, “ Do they make you a present 
of the freight? ” He said, “ Oh, no; I suppose I pay it in the end,'but I am not 
concerned in it.” That is one reason wdiy rail rates have controlled on cotton 
to such an extent; but as a matter of fact, you can get exactly the same rates 
to New Bedford by rail as you get by water on cotton; it does not make any 
difference, although a very large amount of cotton comes to New Bedford by 
water, though it comes in a very peculiar way. Galveston and New Orleans 
are the largest cotton shipping points in this country. Over 50 per cent of all 
the cotton raised in the United States goes out of Galveston and New Orleans, 
and there is not a single direct water carrier from Galveston or New Orleans to 
any point east of New York. There is where you may see the fine hand of the 
railroad—and I do not say that with any feeling of bitterness against the rail- 


MEERIMACK RIVEE^ MASS. AND N. H. 


109 


road, because I tliink it shows their business acumen; tliey are looking after 
business. 

So that cotton comes around into New York and there it is reshipped onto the 
Sound Line boats, and goes to various points. New Bedford happens to receive 

very large proportion of the cotton, larger than Fall River does, because it 
has this direct rail line up through Taunton and up into Lowell. That gives 
them a direct outlet, and so, while they receive somewhere in the neighborhood 
of 400.000 bales of cotton in a year, less than half of it comes by rail and the 
other by water; and of that that came in by water in 1914 and 1915, 148,000 
bales went right through to New Bedford, which is a reshipping point. 

There are certain things going on that are going to change this. You are 
probably aware of the fact that New Orleans has recently built a great munici¬ 
pal cotton warehouse, and that is going to facilitate the handling of cotton so 
that it can be put out by the cheapest route, and it also admits of the facilita¬ 
tion of the collection of money, which is another great saving. 

I find that very little has been said about lumber, and yet I think there 
would be a most decided saving on lumber, because, based upon what Fall liiver 
or New Bedford receive, there is no reason why Lawrence and Lowell would 
not enjoy a saving. I think that on lumber there would be a considerable saving. 

I a)n taking up so much time that I am going to hurry right along, and I 
am going to arrive at a conclusion. 

The return on this investment I have arrived at in just this way. I have 
said there will be a million tons of coal shipped annually with a saving in 
cost to the consumer of 40 cents a ton, and that will mean $400,000; and that 
there will be 500,000 bales of cotton on which there would be a saving of 25 
cents a bale. That is only about 6 cents a hundred. I think there are about 
four bales to a ton, or something like that. That would be $125,000; 32,000,000 
feet of lumber on which there will be a saving of $2 per thousand, or $64,000. 
Also 8,000,000 shingles at 50 cents per thousand saving—that is not spoken of, 
but we receive a large amount of shingles all water. That would be $4,000 
saved on shingles, or a total of $593,000. 

I think that is a conservative estimate; and before you pass to final judg¬ 
ment upon it I want you to take the time to go back and read what has hap¬ 
pened to Providence since they started to improve it. If you will recall from 
the report. Providence at one time had 4^ feet of water and practically no com¬ 
merce at all. They have now actually 25 feet, and will soon have 30, and their 
shipments via water have grown since the year 1913. They were something 
like 4,000,000 tons. It is given as 4,539,000, but 500,000 tons went to Pawtucket. 

That is what has happened by giving Providence the advantage of an ade¬ 


quate channel. 

I do not undertake to say whether the reports from Col. Craighill on the Mer¬ 
rimack River are correct or not. I think 18 feet is all right. There are a lot 
of barges and scows, and yet there is a very large tonnage in vessels of 17 or 
18 feet draft. 

Taking New Bedford, that is, of course, but one of many. Providence has 
actually had spent on it over .$2,.500,000, and the State and city have contrib¬ 
uted two millions, so that ultimately, as the thing stands to-day they will have 
spent necrly $5..500,000 on Providence. Of course, no man can say but what 
that is a wonderful investment, and the same with New Bedford. Something 
like $564,000 spent altogether by the Federal Government, and you can trace 
a return of $1,694,000 in a half a dozen different ways, not only in freight 
rates, but upon the development of the city that would never have come had it 


not been for the improvement. 

Now we come to the Connecticut River, and I say that you have, of course, 
an opportunity to make a very large improvement at a moderate investment, 
estimated at $1,870,000. This is a happenso, and they are wonderfully fortunate 
in beine- able to get it at .such a low cost, although the amount of tonn;ige that 
is to be affected, according to Maj. Pillsbury looks to rather small; only 
700 000 tons altogether; but in that he figures a return of $200,000 or $300,000 a 
vea’r If you apply the same basis of reasoning to the tonnage that can be af¬ 
fected by‘the improvement of the Merrimack River, of course, there would be 
no doubt but what the return would justify the expenditure. 

Mr Rogers. I want to call now on three representatives of the three ooards 
of trade in the valley, who will each confine himself to five minutes. First, 
the northernmost city, or the westerly city of Lowell; Mr. Robert F. Marden, 
president of the Lowell Board of Trade. 


110 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ IVIASS. AND N. H. 


STATEMENT OF Mil. ROBERT F. MARDEX, 


PRESIDENT OF THE LOWELL BOARD OF JRADF. 


Mr. M ARDEN. I will be very brief. 

The statistics on which Col. Craighill liased his report are now two or three 
years old or more, and you all know tiie acceleration of business. I wall give 
you one instance simply to point out the way the thing is going in our valley. 
The freight receipts in Lowell on the Boston & Maine are ,$40,000 a month 
larger than they were wlien Col. Craighill was given any statistics. We think 
that this is a straw which shows the way the wind blows. Throughout this 
whole discussion, for a number of years, we have tried in Lowell to coniine 
ourselves to facts in the matter. We have tried to get at the bottom of it. 
We have not tried to ask for anything unreasonable. We have not wanted to 
damage existing industries in any way, and our board has attempted to get in 
touch with the mill men, and with Mr. INIills, the engineer for locks and canals, 
whom probably most of you know. Mr. Mills said unequivocally that he would 
not interfere with the water power in Lowell, and he further said ofticially to¬ 
me and to the assembled mill men at a session we had that it would be very 
feasible to connect Hunts Falls with the frontage of the mills on the Merri¬ 
mack—in fact, he was rather emiihatic about it when some of the other 
mill men questioned it. He said it could be very easily done. 

Col. Abbot. By water or land? 

Mr. IMardex. I suspect he had in mind a rail connection over water, or .some¬ 
thing ; I would not attempt to say ; but at any rate he was very decided about 
it that it was entirely feasible to be done. 

Col. Abbot. In other words, with coal delivered at Hunts Falls it could be 
dumped at a reasonable price to the mills? 

Mr. Marden. Yes, sir; carried right along right up the river in.side of the 
channel, if it wns decided to stop at Hunts Falls. We do believe, however, it 
would be very desirable if the channel could be carried into the basin at Lowell 
rather than to stop at Hunts Falls. Still, it would do at Hunts Falls. 

Col. Abbot. In that connection if it got into the pool above Lowell you would 
have a large wharf front for development? 

Mr. Marden. Yes; tremendous. 

Col. Abbot. Of course you would have a much more expensive development 
down at Hunts Falls? 

]Mr. Marden. Yes. We have had on our committee the State engineer, George 
Bowers, who has made a study of the tidal scour element and has talked with 
Col. Craighill at different times, and he submitted a method of going through 
Hunts Falls, a method which has been plotted, I think, on the plans. By the 
way, Mr. Bowers knows the bed of the river. He served as State engineer for 
a great many years and dealt with the river bed, so whatever he said to Col. 
Craighill on that was based on actual knowledge. 

We talked with Mr. Mills a number of times, and I think I ought to say that 
I\Ir. Mills is the only man in the Merrimack Valley that in any of the public 
hearings has offered any opposition. Qdiat is referred to in Col. Craighill’s final 
report. We want to emphasize the one fact, that Mr. Mills states that he has 
talked with all of the mill agents in I^owell, and that he voiced the sentiment of 
every mill agent and mill treasurer in Lowell in declaring that the channel is 
not wanted. However, in that same hearing you will find in the record in 
which Mr. Mills made that statement that INIr. Flather, the treasurer of the 
Boot Mills, spoke in favor of it. Mr. A. D. Milliken, agent of the Hamilton 
IManufacturing Co.; Mr. F. A. Bowen, agent of the Appleton Co., as well as 
Hon. Butler Ames, head of the Heinze Electric Co. and Wamesit Power Co.; 
George S. Motley, president of the Lowell Gaslight Co., and others, spoke in 
favor of it. Furthermore, Mr. Mills was the only man to argue against the 
proposition and is apparently unwilling to consider it. 

I think perhaps I should say, simply to show the view that he takes of this 
proposition, that we have here a letter from him on the subject in which he 
says that the dam at Lawrence would interfere with the water power; that a 
vessel going through at Lawrence would take 1 per cent of the water power, 
and if 100 vessels went through they would lose 100 per cent of water power! 
He has got that down in black and white. 

I submit, if there were 100 vessels that went through there it is worth losing 
100 per cent of the water power to get them, because the Panama Canal, as I 
understand it, can not possibly carry 100 vessels a day. I may be wrong, but 
at any rate I do not think that any of us expects that 100 vessels a day are 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. If. Ill 

goiiiS throiigli the Lawrence Dam. If they did, it would he quite a commercial 
proposition. 

^ye receive Mr. jMills’s opinions with all due respect. We have welcomed his 
assistance, even though it has been against us. Then he has served to keep us, 
in Lowell, along a pretty stmight line of thought. As 1 said, we have tried 
absolutely to do this thing right, and all we are interested in is the actual 
solution of it rightly. We do not want to have the Merrimack Rivei- a ship 
channel just to get a ship channel and see sails and steamboats coming up the 
river. That would be ratlier bad if the business interests were to be held to 
strict accountability on that basis. But we have noted with a good deal of 
interest th.e recommendations made by Col. Abbot in submitting Col. Craighill’s 
report. Col. Abbot points out the fact that there is at least a proportional 
interest on the part of the United States Government, and we would like to see 
that proportion scientifically worked out, and that without relinquishing our 
original position that the Merrimack River is important enough for decisive 
Federal action. 

I think perhaps I had better not take any more of your time. 

Mr. Rogees. Do you want to leave that brief with "the board? 

Mr. Maeden. I have prepared a brief which I did not take the time to read, 
gentlemen. 

Mr. Rogees. That may be filed, l\Ir. Chairman? 

Col. Abbot. Yes. We are very glad to have it. 

Mr. Rogees. The next speaker will be from Lawrence, the secretary of the 
Lawrence Chamber of Commerce, Mr. George E. Rix. 

statement of me. geoege e. eix. 

Mr. Rix. Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. To start with, I have a letter 
from our mayor. Would you care to have me read it, or just submit it? 

Col. Abbot. Just give us the gist of it. 

Mr. Rix. He says: 

“ Believing, as I do, in the efficacy of a deeper Merrimack River to help Law¬ 
rence develop her present industries and obtain new ones, to secure quicker and 
cheaper transportation for her raw materials inbound and her finished product 
outbound; to relieve the present overcrowded condition of the rail carriers’ lines 
and terminals and incidental car shortage; and, finally, to place Lawrence in 
that close touch with the outside world which is not enjoyed by an inland city, 
I wish to go strongly on record as disagreeing with the district engineer, Col. 
Craighill, in his report that the project had no economic value. 

“ I deeply regret my inability to appear before you to speak in favor of this 
project, which has been so dear to the hearts of so many of us for so many 
years. 

“ Mr. A. B. Sutherland, who will present this letter in my absence, has un¬ 
limited data to prove to you that the project is economical and practicable. 

“ The city of Lawrence has pledged itself to build and maintain piers and 
wharves on the river front. 

“ The State of Massachusetts has appropriated $1,000,000 as an evidence of 
good faith and belief in the project. 

“At a most conservative estimate the saving on raw material alone would be 
in excess of the required interest on $10,000,000. 

“I wish to impress on tlie membei's of your board that I thoroughly believe 
in this project and that Lawrence is a unit and squarely behind it. 

“ It is a project of merit and is devoid of engineering objections. 

“ I wish to make my strongest plea for your thoughtful consideration of the 
arguments presented by Mr. Sutherland and that you will receive them with an 
open mind, unprejudiced by the adverse report of your colleague, whom we hold 
in the liighest esteem, but with whom we fail to agree.’’ 

The brief which I have prepared, or the memorandum which I have prepared 
here, seems very weak in compafi.son with Mr. Williams’s dealing with the 
matter, so that I will simply confine myself to a few of the statements. 

IMr. John A. Bernhard, president of the Alabama & New Orleans Transporta¬ 
tion Co., New Orleans, La., and at present engaged in promoting a $5,000,000 
barge line between St. PbuI and New Orleans, is authority for the statement 
that coal can be profitably handled between Norfolk and Boston for 35 cents 
a ton and to Portland for not over 45 cents. Taking one instance of our in¬ 
dustries there in Lawrence, that of the Lawrence Gas Co., it now uses over 


112 


MEREIMACK EIVEK^ MASS. AND N. II. 

40,000 tons of coal a year. That estimate was made in 1914. On this they 
pay 80 cents freight from Philadelphia to Boston—water freight. It is 608 
miles from Philadelphia to Boston, and for a haul of 26 miles from Boston 
to Lawrence they pay 85 cents. They pay 18 cents unloading and handling 
charge in Boston and 3 cents weighing charge in Boston, making a total of $1.86. 

With an outlet on the Merrimack, freight might pay an additional 5 cents to 
Lawrence, but the rail haul charge of 85 cents would be wiped out, thereby 
effecting a saving of 80 cents and doing away with the expense of 21 cents for 
handling in Boston. With coal brought to Lawrence in boats and the resultant 
saving, steps would surely be taken to establish pockets and unloading facili¬ 
ties on the banks of the river. The figures which Col. Craighill used were 
1914 figures. I have with me a recent canvass of all the mills, and I find that 
in 1915 there were better than 500,000 tons into Lawrence. 

The American Woolen Co. used 170,000 tons. The Pacific Mills used 125,000 
tons. The Everett Mills used 70,000 tons; the Arlington Mills, 75,000 tons, and 
so on down the line. They are set forth in my brief. 

I might say that those were 1915 figures, which are augmented by 50 per cent 
this year, owing to the increase in business in raw materials of all kinds, 
cotton and wool having gone up at the same rate. 

At 80 cents a ton saving, leaving out of the question the 21 cents handling 
in Lawrence, this would make a saving of $420,000 on coal alone. This is an 
extremely conservative estimate, and takes no account of the tremendous ton¬ 
nage in cotton, wool, lumber, pig iron, pulp wood, cement and lime, sand, 
granite, brick, oil, etc., which could be profitably handled by boat if the river 
were made navigable. 

I am not going into this. There is an actual addition of 15 cents per hun¬ 
dred pounds at present, or $3 a ton, on cotton from New Orleans to Boston that 
we have to pay, and we now pay an additional 8 cents, or $1.60 a ton, freight 
from Boston to Lawrence. Ninety-eight thousand tons of cotton and wool were 
brought to Lawrence in 1914 by rail. This is almost double—I would almost 
guarantee that it has doubled—what it was in 1906, because all the mills are 
running to full capacity. In 1915 these figures were made up. One hundred and 
fifty-three million one hundred and twenty-seven thousand two hundred and 
forty pounds, or 76,563 tons, of le.ss-than-carload high-class freight moved be¬ 
tween Lawrence and New York City, and most of that is handled, as Mr. Wil¬ 
liams said, by the boat lines on the sound, the Fall River and New Bedford 
Lines. Of course that would all be handled by the boat lines. About one-third 
of the amount of this tonnage would move in and out of Boston. If this river 
is opened up the whole surrounding territory is going to contribute to the ton¬ 
nage of the boat lines. 

During the past winter New England has been suffering from an almost 
utter paralysis of its rail carriers. Never before has such a condition been 
known. This condition would have been impossible if the INIerrimack River 
were navigable at Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill, as the coal and raw mate¬ 
rial would have been handled by water. 

Col. Taylor. Was it not frozen up solid this winter? 

INIr. Rix. No, sir; it was not. The main channel of the river has not been 
frozen. The ice companies have had hard work to get in their crop of ice. 
At no time during the past winter has the river been closed by ice. 

The normal number of cars in the Lawrence yard is 500 to 700. At times 
this past winter there were 1,700 loaded cars waiting delivery, of which as 
high as 800 have been coal in open cars frozen hard. 

Our desire is not to cripple the railroads by taking away their business. We 
are quite sure that if they could be relieved of the necessity of handling coal 
even to our section of New England they would then be in a position to devote 
their equipment to the handling of high-class traffic entirely, which is now made 
to wait for the enormous coal tonnage which must be moved to keep the indus¬ 
tries running. 

Col. Winslow. Did you say that those cars were allowed to lie loaded in the 
Merrimac railroad yards? 

Mr. Rix. Yes, sir. I go by the reports of the cars in the yard. Eight hundred 
cars have been there unloaded- 

Col. Winslow. Why are they not unloaded? 

Mr. Rix. The roads have not had the facilities. There would come rains and 
hard freezes, and they resorted to all kinds of expedients to unload those cars. 

Col. Winslow. Then the congestion in the freight business is due to the fact 
that the receivers have not promptly unloaded the cars? 



MEKKIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. 11. 


113 


Ml. Ivix. 1 <) a larii;c‘ oxleiit; yos. sir. That has been so. of eonrsG. I am 
fiGG to admit that to a CGrtaiii GxtGiit tliG conditions this vvintGr havG bGGii such 
as to ha^G put it ujj to tliG carriers that thoir tGrminal facilities were iiiadequatG. 
Col. Winslow. Are these cars dump cars that are run up onto a trestle? 

Mr. Rix. Largely so. 

Winslow. And they could not get them out? 

after unloading, they were frozen up- 

Not even with steam? 


Col. 

Mr. 

Col. 

Mr. 


liix. Even 
Winslow. 
Rix. They 


resorted to steam, and finally built sheds and ran steam pipe.s 
and drove down perforated pipes at different points and left them overnight, 
and in the morning they got to work on them to work them out. They 
resorted to all kinds of expedients to relieve that situation. 

\V hen we consider the wear and tear on equipment, rent of foreign cars, 
huge increases in pay rolls, discontent of help on overtime work and demands of 
employees for higher wages, extra switching necessary on account of blockades, 
for wliich no charge can be made- 

Coi. A 11 LOT. Your argument there is based on the actual utilizing of the trans- 
[►ortation via water in addition to the existing rail facilities? 

Air. Rix. Absolutely; yes, sir. We believe that the rail carriers should devote 
their equipment that is now tied up in the handling of coal, at their yards, 
more particularly—the equipment can be obtained, but the rail terminal facili¬ 
ties can not be increased. That was brought out very prominently in the 
Capital Sound line hearings before the Interstate Commerce Commission; that 
with the Sound lines denied to the New Haven road and the all-rail facilities 
developed, it would be impossible—absolutely impossible, physically impossible— 
to handle the tonnage by the all-rail routes, as the facilities were inadequate. 
They can not be developed in years or with millions of money. We have that 
same situation with us at the present time. The Boston & Maine road, with a 
boat line, were intending to make an extension of their sea freight—I will not 
go into that matter, but they have plans already drawn and submitted to us 
and have imrchased the land for the erection of a new plant. That leaves 
them without any available grounds for an extension of their switching yards. 
At this time they have had to store our cars away out 15 or 18 miles on the 
line, to save one track—simply one pulling-in track; and it is only by super¬ 
human efforts that they have been able to keep the yard clear and the industries 
going. 

Col. Keller. Has the product of those industries been badly congested? 

Mr. Rix. It has, indeed. It has been seriously congested. The whole system 
of transportation there and the buying and selling system of mills has been 
put out this winter by this condition, and the larger industries, such as the 
American Woolen Co., have been enabled to insure that by paying the railroads 
for special trains. They have waited one or two days and loaded as many full 
cars as they could to New York City. The charge has been $5,000 flat for a 
spi'cial train, crew and engine, to New York City. That is the way they have 
handliHl it. The express companies liave benefited hugely. They have had, 
instead of one car, as they ordinarily have out of Lawrence every night, three 
to six cars of solid express business that should have moved by freight. The 
same way coming in. 

Col. Keller. Has this ever happened before? 

Mr. liix. Never that I know of; no. 

Col. Keller. All of the industi’ies luive been running full time at some 


periods in the past? 

IMr. Rix. Not recently, I guess. 

Col. Kei.ler. Not in 1918? 

:Mr. Rix,. Not in 1918; not that I know of; positively not since 1910, at least, 
(to!. Keller, What happened in 1910? 

IMr. Rix. Recently they built enormous new mills—since that time. The 
raili-oad jieople had' called on the industries to enlarge their unloading facili¬ 
ties, but they have now got all the city will give them in the way of tracks 
across tlu'se streets, side ti’ucks on the streets, grade crossings, and have ex¬ 
tended their trestles and extended their unloading facilities as fast as they 
could. But the fact still remains that they can not take care of it all. 

Col. Arrot. Those mills are largely coal consuming mills, are they not? 

IMr. Rix. Yes, sir; very largely. Almost all the water is used for washing. 
Col. Taylor. Were the conditions this wintei- very much worse than in 

1907? 


H. Doc. 1813, 64-2-8 






114 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


Mr. Uix. They are very much worse than in 1907. Tliis is due largely to 
the iiK'i'ease in business. 

Col. Arhot. The railroad situation lias stayed about the same, hnt yon liave 
ji’ot so mnch more business to handle? 

^Ir. Ktx. Yes; so mnch more business to handle. The railroads have been 
nmihle to obtain money to incrense their facilities. Leaving ont of the ques¬ 
tion the physical part it, the inability to obtain space, the railroads have been 
nnnhie to get money. 

Col. Newcomer. Is it not the claim of the railroads that their difficulties 
result almost wholly from the failure of the consignees to remove goods from 
cn rs ? 

IVlr. llix. They do; yes. sir. 

Col. Newcomer. In other words, it is the lack of terminal facilities or stor¬ 
age facilities for the consignees rather than railroad terminal facilities that 
has caused the condition? 

I\lr. liix. Yon are right; there is no nse in my attempting to deny that; it 
is so. 

Col. NEWCoifKR. I think, in fnirness to the railroads, that that ought to he 
stated. 

iMr. Ktx. Certainly. 1 want to say here that I am strongly pro-railroad, as 
I have always been a railroad man; hnt at the same time I have always 
argued with the railroad people that this development was not going to impair 
their revenue, as they seemed to think it would. 

Col. Newcomer. Of course, the railroad business does not contemi>late the 
nse of its cars for storage purposes for indefinite jTeriods. 

Mr. Rix. Very true. I never believed in it myself. 

Mr. Rogers. The next speaker is the secretary of the Haverhill Ro.ard of 
Trade, Mr. Daniel M. Casey. 


statement of :^[R. d an tee ^r. casey. 


Mr. Casey. The time is getting so short that I will he very brief. I jnst 
wish to say that whatevei* has been said in reference to Lawrence and T.owell 
applies equally to Haverhill. The last report of the Department of the Censns 
shows that we have 400 manufactories, as opposed to .315 at the time the figures 
were submitted to Col. Craighill. We are to-day the fastest growing shoe city. 
Forty per cent of our shoes are sold in the South and Southwest. The oth.er 
day there was delivered to the INIystic Wharf in Boston over 50,000 pounds of 
freight which is transshipped by water to those points. We feel that if we had 
water development in the Merrimack River we could use that at least to 
Boston via Charlestown; in fact, all the way through. 

The railroad situation has affected us quite viciously this winter. A great 
many of our shoes going to New Yoi-k we had to send by way of Troy snid the 
NeM" York Central lines. The New York, New Hnven & Hartford and the Souml 
lines refused to accept our shoes. Probably you understand that the railroad 
yards at Lowell, through which our goods had to pass in order to get to New 
York, is much like the neck of a bottle—very long and narrow, with very little 
room for expansion. 

This growth of our city and the lack of transportation facilities lias inci-eased 
our desire for the improvement and development of the IMerrimack River. 

Mr. Rogicrs. The next speaker is a member of the jMerriniack Valley Water¬ 
way Board, a hoard which has reported voluminously on the upper ])art of 
this project especially, and I presume that their reiiorf is before you. I take 
pleasure in introducing Mr. Andrew B. Sutherland, of I^awrence, who will 
speak not more than 15 minutes. 


STATEMENT OF MR. ANDREW B. SUTHERLAND. 


Mr. Sutherland. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, when I was appointed on 
the Merrimack River Waterway Board I was as skeptical about the iiroiiosition 
of opening the Merrimack River to navigation as anyone could he, hut after 
we began to dig into the State archives of ^Massachusetts and find out what 
commerce and trade we had on the river, I became converted to the pi'oi>osi- 
tion, and ever since that time I have strongly advocated it. 

You have had different sets of figures submitted to you from Col. Craighill 
and from Mr. Williams, this morning. I am not an engineer and can not talk 
on that end of it, hut we in Lawrence and the other ports did not confer on the 



MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


115 


figures we presented to you. Therefore there might he a sligiit difference, and 
perhaps it is a mistake that we did not. But we feel in T.awrence that the 
figures we submit to you are right, and we come before you this morning to ask 
you to set aside Col. Craighiirs reports because they are not in accordance with 
the facts that have been submitted to you. He assumes in this first report a 
cost of $10,000,000, and that the saving will he $400,000 or more. That is 4 per 
cent. We claim that his figures are far from accurate, and that is why we 
appeal so strongly to you, knowing that your collective judgment is better than 
individual judgment, and we hope you Vvill set aside his report. 

^ Col.^ Craighill does not find much fault with the engineering aspects of the 
situation. He devotes almost his entire reports to the commercial aspects, and 
he quotes three sets of figures, one submitted by ]Mr. IMills, engineer of the 
Essex Co., the company that controls the water power at Lawrence; those sub¬ 
mitted by Congressman lingers, of Lowell; and those by Mr. S. P. Sherman, 
secretary-manager of the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce. Secretary Sher¬ 
man’s figures sliow the highest saving of all figures submitted. I am prepared 
to stand by his figures, as they have been obtained after a great deal of study 
and correspondence with marine transportation companies, and are based on 
prewar rates from southern points to Portland, in the State of Maine, which 
we feel would be about the same cost as transportation to Lowell, Lawrence, or 
Haverhill. 


In Col. Craighill’s first report lie figures the possible saving at 20 cents a ton, 
but Mr. Mills, who is an opponent of the river development project figures it at 
23 cents a ton. Therefore you will see that Col. Craighill’s figures are more 
favorable to the opponents’ side than they are to the side of the proponents of 
the scheme. 

I call attention to the fact that without any reasoning or compiling of figures 
Col. Craighill arbitrarily fixes the saving at 20 cents a ton on 2,.500,000 tons of 
freight, which is about half the freight that passes in and out of the Merrimack 
Valley; but we all know that water-borne freight is only one-tenth to one-fifth 
the cost to haul by railroad, and therefore the figures of tlie Unite<l States 
engineer, being based on supposition, should not have any bearing on your 
decision. 

Take the commodity of coal. We in Lawrence and Lowell pay railroad 
charges of 85 cents a ton from tidewater ports, plus 18 cents per ton for trans¬ 
ferring from steamers or barges to railroad cars, plus 3 cents per ton for 
weighing, making a total of $1,06 per ton which that coal costs us more than 
at tidewater places, such as Boston, Lynn, Salem, or Newburyport. We have 
deducted from $1.06 the 11 cents for extra distances, which would make the 
same rates as those now enjoyed by Portland and receiving points in Maine, 
making a saving of 95 cents per ton as correctly figured by officials of the 
Lavu’ence Chamber of Commerce. 

Mr. Mills’s figures are so far from the real facts of the case that coming from 
an opponent of the scheme they may be dismissed without further considera¬ 
tion, although they are more favorable to the proponents than those of the 
United States engineer. 

The figui’es wliich we present to you on five commodities of raw materials 
are taken from the Boston & Maine official sheets. In fact, according to reports 
from the mills and dealers in Lawrence, the amount of coal brought to Lawrence 
shows 560,000 tons instead of 385,225 tons as given by the Boston & Maine 
Railroad. Our argument is based on the Boston & Blaine figures of 385,225 
tons to Lawrence, which, figured at 95 cents :i ton saving, makes a saving on 
that commodity of $361,200. 

The railroad figures of Lowell show 489,000 tons, which shows a saving of 


$464,550, and to Llaverhill, 196,112 tons, which, figured at 65 cents a ton saving, 
would sIjow $127,478. That should be figui-ed now at 95 cents. But at 65 
cents it would show a saving of $127,478, making a total of $953,228 saving 
annually on coal alone for the three cities of Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill, 
which i.s almost 10 per cent saving on Col. Craighill’s estimate for the construc¬ 
tion of a $10.000,fM)0 channel, terminal, locks, and sewerage systeni. 

In addition to those figures there would be a further saving on Haverhill 
freiglit, as the freight charges which have recently gone into operation j-egard- 
ing Haverhill have raised the price on coal freight from 55 to 85 cents a 
ton. Most of the coal for Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill comes from Mystic 
Wharf, Boston, so that although Lawrence is 8 miles nearer Boston than Haver¬ 
hill, it has paid 30 cents more per ton. 


116 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


liCt us take the commodity of lumi)er. Of lumber Lawrence received 58,000 
tons, Lowell 43,409 tons, and Haverhill 50,000 tons. The saving to Lawrence 
would he $55,000; to Tx)well, $41,238; and to Llaverhill $32,500, or a total saving 
on lumher of $128,738. 

Of cotton, Lawrence receives 24,024 tons, Lowell, 102,305 tons; a saving can 
he estimated at $39,300 to Lawrence and $104,088 for Lowell, making a total 
of $203,988. 

The next commodity is wool. Lawrence receives 73,712 tons, and Lowell .3,905 
tons; and we here would effect a saving of $118,(H)0 to Lawrence, $0,248 to 
Lowell, or a total saving on wool of $124,248. 

On hides and leather, which is the last of the five commodities which have 
been tabulated, Lowell and Havm'hil! ai’e two very imjioi'tant centers, with 
100,000 tons to each city, making a saving of $200,000. The total for the hve 
commodities—coal, lumher, cotton, wool, and leather—is 1,021,492 tons, with a 
saving of $1,010,202. The amount of freight handled in the IMerrimack Valley 
in Massachusetts is 5,000,000 tons a year, and there is no doubt in the minds of 
the proponents of this scheme that the annual saving would more than double 
the above figures, as no consideration lias been given to tlie other three and a 
half million tons of incoming and outgoing freight. 

Col. ('raighiirs conclusions are very much at variance with the facts a.nd the 
conditions. He quotes that the mills of Lawrence receive their coal on the land 
side and could not change their system to receive by water without great 
expense. Although the coal pockets are on the land side, many of the boilers 
and iiower plants are on the water side, and the mill people have told me if they 
could effect a substantial saving on coal, it would pay tliem to make the neces¬ 
sary changes to receive by water instead of rail. 

3Mie American Woolen Co., which uses 170,000 tons of coal, has considered 
bringing coal to tidewater at Haverhill and building a lanvate trolley line 
to Lawrence for their supply. Tliis great corporation that uves 170.000 tons of 
coal and employs 18 000 workers in Lawrence is in favor of this sclieme; in 
fact. I have not found any of the larger manufaoturers in Lawrence who are 
not in favor but who do not desire to say much in favor, because they are tied 
up with railroad intei*ests and do not desire to antagonize the railroad com¬ 
panies. The amount of capital invested in mill interests in Lawrence totals 
over $90,000,000. 

Col. AnnoT. Does that statement mean that the mill owners liave large hold¬ 
ings of i-ailroad stock? 

IMr. .Si^THEKLAND. Yes, sir: it does exactly mean that. So it is these inter- 
locking-directorate intei‘ests that are opposed. But 
in Lawrence oppo.sed to this proposition. All the others are in 
absolutely in favoi’ of it. 

Col. WiixsLow. Ai-e you merely considering saving in the freight laites, or 
you expect the luaxluds will actually go by water? 

Mr. Spthkui.axi). I ex])ect that they will actually go by water, the same 
they have done in Nev' Bedford and other places. 

Col. AVixsr.ow. Would there not be an unloading charge after you got 
tliere? 

Mr. SrTiiEKi.Axn. We have to unload now from the <-ars. 

Col. AVinslow. But unloading from a car and from a shi[) are quite <li!Tei*ent 
tinngs. 

Mr. Sttthekland. All that they can do is to go right up hack of the mills and 
unload into their coal pockets. There woidd only be one unloading instead of 
two, if we had water transportation. 

Col. AVtnst.ow. A'ou would unload it right from the boat into the boilers? 

Mr. Stttjteklani). Into the coal pockets. 

Col. AVinslow. That is what you do off the cars? 

Mr. SiTTHERLANi). That is the way they can do. 

C<4. AVinslow. Dumping coal right into a coal pocket is quite a different 
thing- 

Mr. Sutherland. They could do the same: they could make arrangements to 
receive their freight by water. The Pacific Mills can take a barge load of coal 
right on the banks of the river and dump it right into their power ]ilant, and 
so could all the other large interests. You take the Arlington :Arills, a mile 
back from the water. Still, they are in favor of this project. That is one of 
the biggest mills in this country. 

Col. Taylor. It could not use it anyway? 


T only find one single man 

of it; 


! I 

favor 


do 


as 


up 



MEBKIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


117 


Mr. SuTHEKLAiSu. Oil, they hgiire they are going to get quite a substantial 
saving. 

Col. Kellek. They would not carry their coal by water in all probability? 

Mr. Sutherland. They would; yes. 

Col. Keller. And then pay the land-transportation charge? 

Mr. Sutherland. It would not be large. 

Col. Keller. It costs at least 25 cents a ton. 

Mr. Sutherland. It might, even with that, be a great saving. 

Col. AVinslow. They would have the same unloading charge? 

Mr. Sutherland. Yes, sir; but that is only one feature. I can quote you here 
mills tliat use iiractically 825,000 tons—two mills, the Pacillc and the Americaii 
W'ooleii Co. 

Col. Abbot. In all your ligures the assumption has been that the cost of 
unloading water-borne coal at the mills would be the same at the mills as 
unloading car-borne coal? 

Mr. Sutherland. Exactly. 

Col. Abbot. Then you should deduct from the business the cost of handling 
coal out of barges as compared with handling it by gravity. 

Mr. Sutherland. AVe would still have a splendid argument. 

Col. Abbot. Is there any facility for getting those cars where they can be 
unloaded-- 

Mr. Sutherland. The railroads look after the mills very well, as far as they 
are able to. 

(Jol. AVinslow. A\'ho dumps the cars when they get to your pocket? 

Mr. Sutherland. The mill employees dump them. 

Col. AATnslow. That certainly does not cost anywhere near as much as. ini' 
loading from a boat? 

Mr. Sutherland. On page 8^ Col. Craighill says; 

“The great manufacturing intere.sts of Lawrence and Lowell, whose con¬ 
sumption of raw materials and production of finished products are included in 
the statistics of the proponents and relied upon by them in justifying the pro¬ 
posed improvement, only three or four representatives of mills have favored 
the improvement, and none of tlie others have appeared or expressed any in¬ 
terest in it.” 

AA^e differ Adth Col. Craighill on that statement, nor is it correct as far as 
liawrence is concerned, for of the 129 individual establishments in Lawrence, 
all except one or two of them favor this improvement, and the one or two can 
hardly be classed as opponents, but may be put in the indifferent class. 

On page 2,^ article 5, Col. Craighill’s last report, he says: 

“ The figures of 6 cents per ton for towage from the mouth of the Merrimack 
to Lowell and return, based on a 1,500-ton barge, appear to me too low. In 
towing vessels up the tributaries of Boston Harbor there is an additional charge 
of 1 cent per ton for steamers and barges and 3 cents per ton for sailing vessels 
for each bridge passed through.” 

Provided we deduct these charges from the figures that we have presented, 
we would still have a very strong case. On bridge tolls to Haverhill, there 
are five bridges. That matter has been brought out here when Mr. Williams 
was speaking. The bridge tolls would reach the sum of $17,315. There are 
eight bridges to Lawrence, making $45,880, and 13 bridges to Lowell, $96,000, 
which, taken on the 3-cent rate on sailing vessels, brings the anticipated saving 
considerably lower, but still leaves us a splendid margin in favor of the project. 

The extra cost to Lawrence through bridge tolls would be $137,640; to Lowell, 
$288,061; and to Haverhill, $51,945. After deducting that from our estimate 
of $1,610,202, it would leave us on the 1-cent charge, $1,450,000, and on the 
3-cent charge, $1,132,554, which, even according to Col. Craighill’s own adverse 
figuring, would show a 10 per cent saving on his highest figures estimated, 
namely, $10,000,000, to give us what we desire. 

AA^e even question the expenditure of $10,000,000, but figure the cost to hardly 
exceed three-fourths of that sum. 

Col. Craighill’s last report, paragraph 2,® says that his principal reason for 
reporting adversely on this important waterway is that it would not be a pay¬ 
ing invekment. AA^e feel that we can easily prove to any fair-minded body of 
men, whether in the United States service or otherwise, that the facts that we 
have herewith submitted more than prove that it would not only be a paying 
investment, but it would be a greater paying investment than any similar 
project which the United States has ever undertaken._ 

1 Page 62 of this document. 2 page 61 of this document. * Page 60 of this document. 






118 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. 11 . 


(V!. Craigliill says that the effect of a dam at Lions Mouth and the improve¬ 
ment of the river at the mouth by tidal scour would be detrimental. That is a 
matter which does not appear to contain any great objection even l)y Col. 
Craighill, and which can be very easily overcome, as we do not intend to 
divert any portion of the river from its regular course or channel, and the pro¬ 
posed dam \vould not have any perceptible effect on scour, more than tlie present 
dams. 

Ilegarding sewerage, the matter of taking sewage out of the river has been 
very seriously considered by the Legislature of Massachusetts during the pres¬ 
ent term, and it has been turned over to the State board of health to devise 
some means to take sewage and objectionable imitter out of the river. 

So the State of Massachusetts is working on that feature of the river develop¬ 
ment. 

Col. Craighill says: 

“ The most important consideration to my mind is the question of whether 
or not the improvement would be a paying investment for the United States 
to make for the benefit of our national commerce.” 

There can not be any question that where a saving of 4 per cent, as figured 
by Federal officers, on a small number of commodities would be effected it helps 
to enhance the benefits of our national commerce. What has come true regard¬ 
ing Glasgow, Manchester, and other European cities through water develop¬ 
ment would be repeated in the Merrimack Valley, where even less favorable con¬ 
ditions, from a manufacturing and commercial standpoint, prevail than at 
Glasgow or Manchester. We are away in the northeastern corner of the 
United States, far from all sources of production that contribute raw’ ma¬ 
terials. We are under greater disadvantage than IManchester or Glasgov/, lie- 
caiLse both of those cities have coal and iron in abundance in their immediate 
vicinity. We have to take our coal, iron, and all raw material many hundreds 
of miles, and therefore if it is necessary for Glasgow and Manchester to obtain 
water service it is certainly far more necessary for us with our consumption 
of almost 1,000,000 tons of coal annually, 

On page 5^ of Col. Craighilfs report he stf’tes that the commerce anticipated 
on the river would probably never materialize. He says: 

“ I do not doubt that the improvement of the Merrimack River would result in 
a suflicie’ff reduction on railroad rates to offset whatever snvimr bp 


by water shipjuent, which is really all that is desired by the proponents of the 
project.” 

In tl'.e first f)lace. Col. Craighilfs statement that the commerce would ]'»robably 
never materialize on the river is in line with the argument used by the stage- 
co.ach driver. When the question of railroads was first suggested, he said that 
he did not see how the railroads could pay when there were not enough people 
traveling to keep the stage coaches filled now. His statement regarding all that 
the proponents of this project want is a reduction of railroad rates shows how 
Col. Craighill has failed to grasp a proper conception of the noble purpose which 
the proponents have in view. 

Cur purpose is not to obtain more favorable railroad rates, but to develop our 
present industrial conditions still further and give them the proper freight 
facilities; and it is also our desire to develop a faster and more economical route 
by v/ater to New York and southern points than the railroads at the present 
time are able to supply. In fact, the obiect of the proponents of this scheme is 
to make Haverhill, Lawrence, and Lowell a second Glasgow or a second Man¬ 
chester. Therefore, our purpose is'much greater and nobler than Col. Craighill 
conceded. 

You know, gentlemen, that you have before you at different times large 
apj-jropriations for harbors, especially to develop foreign commerce. Of course, 
foreign commerce is what we are after; but while we are after foreign com¬ 
merce, we should not forget our home commerce. The cost of the raw materials 
that come into the Merrimack Valley every year are greater than the entire 
exports of the United States were to South American countries in 1914; and 
the trade on our river—we question if there is any section of the United States 
where, on a small space of practically 20 miles, you will find raw materials 
brought in amounting to some $117,000,000, and finished products going out 
amounting to \$196,000,000. This will show a tremendous increase over those 
figures. We have a trade there of practically $314,000,000 in raw materials and 
finished products alone, not counting the other commodities that come in and go 
out to and from the valley in the course of trade. Our trade there is $1,000 per 


1 Page 63 of this document. 




MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


/ 


119 


$400 per capita. I am 
on the present figures, 


capita. The foreign trjule of tlie ITiiltal States is only 
quoting you prewar figures, becauise we are not relying 
as they are only spasmodic. 

The demand for some other method of transportation than one line of rail¬ 
road was never moi-e important than during the last year when freight from 
New York, which used to take three to four days, now takes in some cases 
30 days, and freight from points in New Jersey takes two to three months. 
That is about the condition we have had to face for the last four or five 
months. 


Considering all the facts that we have here presented, and the important place 
which the INIerrimack Valley holds as one of the great manufacturing centers 
of this country, we are of opinion that you can not sustain the report Kirnished 
you by Col. Craighill, and we therefore ask you to give' this matter the most 
serious consideration, because on it depends to a great extent the life and 
industry of 307,000 people in the INIerrimack Valley with a trade far in excess 
of that of i)erhaps any other community in the United States. 

That $314,000,000 represents over $1,000,000 for every working day in the 
year that comes in and goes out of the three cities—Lawrence, Lowell, and 
Haverhill. I question very much whether in any part of the United States 
you can find any such figures as those. It is too big a project to be turned 
down—in fact, I feel that this board will not turn it down. The State of Massa¬ 
chusetts has contributed $1,000,000. It is ready for you when you are ready to 
adopt this project. They have shown their good faith in the matter. The State 
of Massachusetts believes in it. It is a considerable sum of money, anywhere. 
Seven to ten million dollars is quite a considerable sum of money, but we all feel 
that tlie expenditure would be fully justified by the return; and if you can not 
<lo it for $1,000,000 on our part, let us know what you will do it for, what part 
the United States ought to pay and what should be done; but we feel that you 
ought to recommend the adoption of this project as far as the Lawrence dam. 

I know how it is with this board. They do not want to get into a controversy 
with any water power company. That is one thing that you want to avoid and 
the L^nited States wants to avoid ; but if you recommend the project as far as 
the Lawrence dam, there are no water power companies that you would inter¬ 
fere with. When you get beyond the Lawrence dam, of course, there is, hut 
there might he some arrangement made by the State to take care of that part. 
But we feel that the United States ought to pay a part where there are no 
complications and no interference. We think you gentlemen will consider the 
matter favorably. 

Col. Abbot. In that connection, if I understand you, you say that if Col. Craig- 
hill’s project for the dam at Lions Mouth and for the dredging up to Lions 
Mouth was adopted by the United States, that would satisfy the Merrimack 
River people? 

IMr. SuTHEBLAND. No; we "think you ought to come to the Lawrence Dam with 
your dredging. 

Col. xVbbot. With your dredging? 

Mr. Sutherland. Yes. 

Col. Abbot. You want to dredge it above the Lions Mouth Dam to carry 18 
feet to the Lawrence Dam? 

Mr. Sutherland. Yes, sir. 

Col. Abbot. I wanted to be sure of that. The State, then, would be, in your 
, opinion, justifie"d in taking up the expenditures beyond that point if anything is 
to be done? 

Mr. Sutherland. l’'es, sir. 


STATEMENT OF HON. J. J. ROGERS, MEMBER OF CONGRESS. 

Mr. Rogers. Gentlemen, there are two speakers who will speak very briefly 
after me, but as I have to go down to the Capitol shortly, I desire to make my 
statement at this time. I dislike to be away at this time. 

In the first place, I want to read a telegram from the chairman of the 
harl)or and hand commission of the State of Massachusetts, former Represen¬ 
tative William S. McNary. It is addressed to the Board of Engineers, by the 
way, and it has been handed to me and I should like to have it included in the 
record. 

Col. Abbot. We have read it before, Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. Rogers. Very well, sir. 


120 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 

The MeiTiinack River, as all the gentlemen of the board know, has been before 
the United States a great many times. I do not think that, whatever onr feel¬ 
ings in the valley may be, we can complain that it has not been very ex- 
Imiistively considered. 

Col. Craighill, as yon all know, reported adversely, after long study, in No¬ 
vember, 1914. It was then recommitted to him, after a hearing on the appeal 
had been assigned by this board, and again last November he reported ad¬ 
versely. 

The first ray of hope that we have seen was in the transmittal report of Col. 
Abbot, in the course of which he referred to the possible pro rating of the ex¬ 
pense of the project, so that the United States might bear 27i per cent of the 
total cost; and Col. Abbot then went on to say that if the State and other in¬ 
terested parties will assent to such a division of the cost he hardly sees how 
an unfavorable report on the United States part of the work could be justified. 
That leads us to hope that this board, or at least one member of this board, 
regards the project, after careful personal study, as presenting a Federal 
question. The reports by Col. Crniehill we feel, perhnps, did not go to that 
length, and our inquiry now is whether we can get the board to regard it as a 
Federal question with the figures presented by Col. Craighill- 

Col. Abbot. Is that Col. Craighill or Col. Abbot? 

Mr. Rogers. Col. Abbot used the figures which are presented by Col. Craighill, 
although Col. Craighill had not himself recommended the Federal assumption 
of that portion of the work. 

Col. Abbot. My position has been from the beginning that so long as the local 
status of the water powers were not affected by the IJnited States works there 
would be some clear line of division between the State portion and the United 
States portion, because tbe water-power development of the river has been 
done by the agents of the State, legally appointed by the State, and, conse¬ 
quently, when we began to enter that part of the river and interfered with the 
State-produced water power we were going rather beyond the point where it 
was wise for the United States to interfere. 

This last proposition that has been made by Mr. Sutherland is a brand-new 
one to me, where he suggests that we stop just below the Lawrence Dam. 
That question, then, as to the expense of that portion of the river above the 
Lions Mouth Dam and below the Lawrence Dam would change entirely those 
present relationships. I do not know exactly how that would come out. 

Mr. Rogers. It might be in the neighborhood of 40 and 60, perhaps, might 
it not? 

Col. Abbot. You would have to look into that. It is quite a different change 
from anything I had thought of before. The question of this being presented 
by the State has been in connection with a total cost up to Hunts Falls. If 
the State is thoroughly satisfied with 18 feet up to the Lawrence Dam, it is a 
wholly new proposition. 

Mr. Rogers. We believe, in the State, A-ery emphatically in self-help prin¬ 
ciple. We have tried, as has repeatedly been said here this morning, to in¬ 
dicate that by legislatiA^e enactment, and that was passed in 1912 and 1913, 
appropriating .$1,000,000; and when it Avas found that the act had expired by 
limitation this year the legislature promptly reenacted it, and so it still stands. 
I do not think that can be regarded at all as the final AA^ord of the State as to 
Avhat it is Avilling to do. I think it is Avhat might be called earnest money. 

Col. Abbot. It is a negotiation? 

Mr. Rogers. Yes, sir. I question if any conclusion AAdiich inAmlves the State 
in an expenditure of over half and perhaps over one-third AA'ould be regarded 
on the analogy of general ri\’-er and harbor negotiations as a particularly at¬ 
tractive one to the State, but our position is tins: We have been discouraged 
by adverse reports time after time here. Col. Abbot’s report submits for the 
first time a recognition of the desirability of and some conditions of Federal 
aid. We Avant to get rid of the adverse reports; AA^e Avant to haA’e upon the 
books, if AA’e can, a statement of Avhat this project is Avorth to the Federal Gov'- 
ernment and Avhat, in the judgment of the board, the State gOA^ernment ought 
to assume. In other words, AA^e Avant to have a starting point at least. We 
have for three years given a great deal of time—I haA^e given months of almost 
consecutive time—to the development of the facts in connection with this 
project. 

Col. Abbot. Your study of the railroad question Avas the most complete I have 
ever seen. 




MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


121 


Ml*. lioiiEKs. I iiiojiii to suy tliiit I put in six months, cvory loisure inomont, 
with tlie very generous aid of the Interstate Coinmeree Coininission, in doing 
eyerytliing I (‘ould along that line; and of course things change very much. 
You recognize that condition in the railroad world—that it is being changed 
as the result of the present world conditions. I do not think it is proper to 
consider the conditions now prevailing as normal. For example, in I.owell we 
are equipped to handle 8,000 or 9,000 freight cars a week. We are now forced 
to handle 19,000 a week, and we are simply not doing it. 

1 am not going into those details which have been quite fully developed this 
morning, but that is tangible evidence of the present difficulties under which 
we labor. 

W e pay in Lowell anywhere from 65 cents a ton to $1.20 a ton for coal more 
than Boston does, although Boston is generally nearer the mine of origin than 
Lowell is. I do not think there can be any question at all that our problem 
on the railroad side is a very difficult one. One of the reports to Congress 
stated in 1910 that railroad freight rates throughout this section are relatively 
high. One of tlie high officers of the Interstate Commerce Commission told me 
day before yesterday that we in New England were paying excessive freight 
charges for the coal at the mine head, and Lowell and Lawrence pay an exces¬ 
sive proportion of that on account of the freight situation. The carriers’ tariff 
to Boston carries a footnote in connection with their freight rates to Salem,. 
Lynn, Newburyport, and Fall River: 

“This freight rate is made to meet water competition and will not apply to 
any intermediate points.” 

That results from the fourth section of the interstate-commerce act, and, 
whatever the cause, it means that we are, as we feel, bearing the other man’s 
burdens; and we say that without the slightest disrespect to the railroads, 
because, as repeatedly said this morning, we would do the same things ourselves. 

I am just trying to gather a few of the points that I think have been left 
untouched, and I am not trying to make a consecutive statement at all. 

One of the things read was the amount which it would cost to bring coal in 
barges up the Merrimack in the first place. I think it ought to be noticed that 
the mouth of the Merrimack at Newburyport is just about the same distance 
from the rest of Cape Cod as Boston Harbor is. I think if you will draw an 
arc of the circle that will prove to be true, so that the question resolves itself 
into a matter of distance via the route up the IMerrimack from Newburyport, 
from Haverhill, or Lowell, or Lawrence, or Lynn, as the case may be. 

Col. Abbot. For barges going outside of Cape Cod; but there is a little dif¬ 
ference in the canal. 

IMr. Rogees. It is a little nearer through the canal. We submitted in the 
previous hearing before Col. Craighill a signed letter from the Boston Towboat 
Co., which I believe is the principal towboat company in that section, and it 
was signed by its executive officer, as I recall, and that letter stated that the 
charge would be $90 for a 1,500-ton barge. That works out at the rate of 6 
cents a ton. Whether that is on account of the bridge which has been sug¬ 
gested this morning I do not know, but the only figure which we have, at all 
events, is the 6 cents charge for one going up the river as far as Lowell and a 
proportionate amount thereof for coal stopping at Lawrence and Haverhill. 

I want also to allude to the fact that although there is but a 7-foot channel 
up as far as Haverhill, very abundant use of that channel has been made in 
Col. Abbot’s preliminary report about three years ago recommending the official 
survey. He said full commercial advantage has been taken of water so far 
provided to Haverhill; and then he goes on to say that, dependent upon the 
mills and living between Flaverhill and Lowell is a population probably more 
dense than anywhere else along an equal number of miles of river, navigable 
or not, in the United States. 

We have from Lowell down to the sea about 300,000 people, and, of course, 
considering New Hampshire, we have also the very important cities of Man¬ 
chester and Nashua, both large consumers of coal and other commodities. At 
Haverhill, where, as I say, there is a 7-foot channel, almost half of the coal 
comes by tidewater. Some years ago one-half has come in; in other years not 
quite a half has come in. I'am not going into that coal matter any further- 

Col. Abbot. That in connection, too, with the transfer from the ocean-ping 
barges to those small Merrimack River barges without any particular facili¬ 
ties at the town of Newburyport. Half of it came by water, although there 
was this large handling charge. 



12^ MEKEIMACK KIVEE^ MASS. AND N. El. 

Col. Winslow. Does Newbiiryport j;et all its coal by water? 

Mr. IloGEKS. I think not, sir. 

In niakinj^' up onr fig'iires we eliminated the small towns and cities along 
the banks. In onr coal figures we took just Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverliilb 
and in a period of business depression. They are ]^rovable figures and work¬ 
able figures. There are half a dozen other towns that would liring the figures 
up from a million to 1,200,000 tons, even in business depression. 

I would like to say one thing in conclusion about the $10,000,000 figure. I 
have not personally lieen quite able to woi’k out what that $10,000,000 figure 
includes. For example, in paragraph 8, of his report of 191.5, referring to the 
possibility of ultimately bringing the channel around into the lower pool. 
Col. Craighill says, that if that extension is made beyond the project which is 
supposed to stop now, at Hunts Falls- 

Col. Auuot. That is, the State project? 

Mr. Rogeus. Yes; but in estimating the figures be lumps both the State and 
the Federal cost, as you know. He says that assuming we are going to go 
around to Hunts Falls leading into the Lowell pool, he is inclined to think 
the total approximate figure of $10,000,000 is too small. Of course, that would 
be a very expensive portion of the project—to go up into the Lowell pool—we 
can all see that at a glance, but when he says he is inclined to think that 
$10,000,000 may be too small an amount, I am wondering if it would not be very 
appreciably less in his view in case we stopped at Hunts Falls. 

And then he goes on also into the question of the adaptation of the mills at 
Lawrence and Haverhill and Lowell to the receipt of coal by water, and he 
apparently includes that in paragraph 6 of his 1915 report as one element in 
the total cost. 

We are unable to understand why that could properly be included in the 
general cost of the item either as a matter of Federal or State or municipal 
consideration, because that would be a question purely for the individuals con¬ 
cerned to decide for themselves as to whether they wished to take coal in this 
way. 

In the third place, he includes the question of land damages and flowage 
rights, and estimates them as in the neighborhood of $3,000,000. We would 
like very much to have that portion of the work appraised at $3,000,000 if 
the Federal Government should so decide, and then turned over as a part of 
the State contribution, because we think, after a very careful study, that we 
can get out of that for a half million dollars. 

Col. Abbot. It is always advantageous to have these flowage questions han¬ 
dled by the States rather than by the United States, because they can handle 
them to better advantage. 

Mr. IloGEKs. I should like to say one word in conclusion about what might be 
called the psychological side of this thing. I think it is very natural, indeed, 
that engineers of the Army and outside of the Army should look with approval 
upon the estimate of a man like Mr. Hiram F. Mills, who is a neighbor and 
personal friend of mine, and who is the engineer both of the power company at 
Lawrence and of the power company at Lowell. 

(Mr. Rogers at this point made a further statement, which, at his request, 
was not reported.) 

Mr. Walter Coulson, of Lawrence, would like to speak about two minutes 
and Mr. Sherman, of Lawrence, about two minutes, and then I will ask IMr. 
Gardner to say a word. 

Col. Newcompul Do you want to say anything about the adverse report from 
Ivowell and Manchester? 

IMr. Rogp:rs. I asked Representative Wason, of Nashua, to come here, and he 
said he would come. I tliink they feel that theirs is secondary to this. Of 
course, we regard the Manchester and Nashua portion, the upper portion of 
the river, as cumulative merely. It undoubtedly involves considerably more 
engineering difficulties, and we have attempted not to bite off manifestly more 
than we can chew. We think we have a pretty fair mouthful just with this 
project alone, and we have left New Hampshire to work it out for itself. 

Col. NEWC 0 ]sr.EK. The report submitted by the division officer and the district 
engineer considered the division of the work between the Government and the 
local interests at Ward Hill. Do you think there is any probability that local 
interests would accept that basis of division? 

Mr. Rogp:us. I should like to answer that in this way. I do not think that the 
State of Massachusetts, the local interests, would think it was fair to pay a 
half or two-thirds of this proposition, although I should like to make it clear 
again that we are very anxious to have this board put in evidence the farthest 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AKD N. H. 


123 


that it thinks the Federal Government might to go in the way of contribution, 
and if it says one-third or one-fourth or one-half, we would like to have that 


statement 

/■I 


offered, and not have this uncompromising adverse report of Col. 

OraigiiiU's staring us in the face, because it would lie exceedingly dithcult- 

Col. Newcomee. Has there been any effort of the local interests to determine 


the extent to which they are willing to goV 

]Mr. Kogeks. I attempted to indicate that at the outset by referring to this 
million-dollar State appropriation. Do you mean by local interests the munici¬ 
pal and private corporations? 

Col. Newcoimer. Every local corporation. The local waterway board recom¬ 
mended that it may be done upon a liasis of cooperation to be determined, and 
I thought possibly the local interests might have studied that (piestion with a 
view to coming to a decision as to what would be the limit to which they would 
be willing to go. 

iNIr. Kogeks. I think probably they thought that the burden of proof was a 
little bit the other way. They tried to meet the burden of proof i)y appr()])ri- 
ating the $1,000,000. They tried to meet the l)urden of proof by guaranteeing 
a substantial landing place at every point ub and down the river, and still they 
have not agreed formally. Mr. McNary’s telegram, which is already before 
you, indicated an anxiety to meet such things as flowage claims and matters of 
that kind. 

Col. Abbot. There is another question I would like to ask. The original 
proposition was to get the improvement in their preliminary reports uj) as far 
as into the Lowell pool, and that question would immediately make the two 
sections of the river from Lowell to Nashua and from Lowell to the sea one 
proposition. If the decision he that the section above the Lowell pool is not 
to be improved either by the State or hy the United States, that then makes 
the desirability of getting from Hunts Falls to the Lowell pool very much less 
than it otherwise would he. There has not been anything presented to-day 
that I have seen showing that the delivery of these heavy freights down at 
Hunts Falls would be a sufficient increase of the Lowell facilities to amount to 
a great deal. There has been an absence of argument on that. Brought up 
later was this question of the improvement below the Lawrence Dam. There is 
not anything definitely before the board as to whether that would be an accept¬ 
able solution of the project for the improving of this section. This is a very 
important question, and if you could get somebody to speak on that definitely 
in the name of the State, as to whetlier they would be satisfied with that, it 
would give us an additional point that we would be very glad to have. 

IMr. Rogers. In regard to your first suggestion, Mr. INIarden quoted Mr. Mills, 
the solitary public opponent of this project, as saying that facilities can very 
readily be placed thei*e from a point just below Hunts Falls up along the river 
side of the Lowell mills- 

Col. Abbot. Yes; but he did not say how that would be handled in flood times, 
and I do not think that there was any very definite proposition there as to how 
that could be carried out. I was interested in that point very much. 

Mr. Rogers. I was not at the meeting to which IMr. Marden referred, so I do 
not know. I had myself supposed that it would probably be something in the 
nature of a railrog.d track running most of the way on the river edge. Mr. 
Sutlierland’s suggestion that the project stop below Lawrence I am not prepared 
to say anything about. I should like to know how it would work out in dollars 
and cents before I pass upon that. I can appreciate, of course, that from tlie 
])oint of view of Lawrence that would be a proper solution. 

Col. Abbot. But the largest amount of coal is involved at Lowell. 

IMr. Rogers. I think not, sir. * 

Col. Abbot. I thought that the figures, as they were given this nuH-ning indi¬ 


cated that. 

Col. Flagler. You intimate that that .$8,000,000 estimate for incidentals is. I 
think you said, very large; that the damages ought to be $.500 000. Col. Craig- 
hill included in that all the expense of the installation of proper terminals at 
Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill. Do you think it is excessive if those are 
included? 

Ml*. Rogers. I intended to say, if I did not, at the time of the original hear¬ 
ings each community guaranteed proper terminals without cost. 

Col. Flagler. But if tho.se are included, would tliat be such an excessive 
estimate? 

Mr. Rogers. I think it would be, sir. 




124 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 

Col. P^LAGLEE. You Still tliiuk it would be excessive? 

INIr. Rogers. I think it would, naturally. I am not an expert on this subject; 
I am a mere dabbler into this very, very large problem. 

I will ask Mr. Gardner to address the board briefly. 

IMr. Gardner. I am not prepared to address the board. Mr. Rogers i.s 
speaking for me. 

Ml*. Rogers. Mr. Walter Coulson. 


STATEMENT OF MR. WALTER COULSON. 

Mr. Coulson. Gentlemen, we are imi)ressed with the fact that an adverse 
report from Col. Craigbill is a handicap which we must contend against, but 
considering that report in the light of tb.e evidence which has been presented 
and which is before this board for consideration, we feel it should not be an 
insurmountable obstacle; and considering further the fact that under the juris¬ 
diction of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a most thorough investigation 
of this project has been conducted, and conelusions have been arrived at leased 
upon facts which are incontrovertible, it does not seem that the adverse report 
of any one man, no matter who he may be, should be accepted without every 
man on this honorable board of appeal weighing the evidence carefully. 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has arrived at conclusions. It feels 
sure of its gi*ounds. It has shown its faith in the same by a substantial appro¬ 
priation. Its investigations have been most thorough. The labor of many 
skillful men has been expended for years past in gathering data which are 
accurate and reliable and uncontradicted to prove to you that the Merrimack 
River is practically the only stream in the world that has a commerce of hun¬ 
dreds of millions annually already developed, and untold millions to be <le- 
veloped, which has been absolutely neglectetl by the General Government, so far 
as navigation is concerned, and left entirely to its own salvation. 

It can challenge the world to point out another river in either the Eastern oi* 
Western Hemisphere that has the volume of water, the population on its banks, 
the developed industries and developed commerce, and the natural resources 
and tremendous possibilities for future expansion, and yet, although it has con¬ 
tributed generously toward the development of rivers and harbors in all parts 
of this country of infinitely less importance, there has been no reciprocation in 
its behalf. 

Notwithstanding this adverse report, the people of Massachusetts know what 
they have in the Merrimack River and they know what their rights are. Until 
recent years they have been asleep to their rights; they have gone along in¬ 
dustriously with their own developments and have been prospering slowly, with¬ 
out lifting their heads to take a wider survey and to say to the General Govern¬ 
ment, “ Here we may be able to get along without you, but we will make much 
more rapid strides with your help. We have helped others for decades by our 
contributions toward the General Government. Now, come and help us, and 
we will return a hundredfold by the acceleration we will get by the help which 
it is the function of the General Government to give us.” 

We mean business now, and we do not propose, after having satisfied our¬ 
selves by data which can not be questioned that we have the one river of mag¬ 
nitude in the world that has been neglected, that this neglect shall continue, and 
until we have exhausted every remedy to have this wrong righted we shall 
proceed. 

An adverse report of no one man should block a great project that is believed 
in by the entire body of a great State, with the exception of a few having 
selfish interests to the contrary, a project which will be of lasting benefit to a 
dense population in the IMerrimack Valley and the means of creating their 
shores into commercial ports of national and world importance. 

We trust that the hearing in this appeal will interest this board enough to 
cause every man on this board of appeal to read the evidence and try to dis¬ 
cover for himself in the light of the evidence how an adverse report could be 
made based on such evidence. With the evidence before you, each has the same 
opportunity as had Col. Craighill to arrive at an independent conclusion. The 
evidence has been gathered after great labor and diligence, and has the prestige 
and dignity of having been gathered under the jurisdiction of the commission 
appointed by the great and General Court of Massachusetts, who are prepared 
to vouch for its accuracy, and with proper regard for the comity and courtesy 
due to the State of Massachusetts it should not be pushed aside lightly. 


MEKKIMACK RIVEE, MASS. AND N. H. 


125 


In an appeal to the full bench of our Supreme Court of Massachusetts the 
decision of the lower court undoubtedly bears weight, but when the appeal goes 
up on the whole evidence, that evidence is read and considered carefully by 
each of the supreme justices, and if they find the decision is not justified by the 
evidence, thei-e is no hesitation on their part to set it aside. Should we not 
expect the same from this board? 

In a case I recently argued before our supreme court, on which I went up on 
the whole record from an adverse verdict of a jury caused by the prejudiced 
and unfair charge of the trial justice, after reviewing the evidence and com¬ 
menting on the charge excepted to, the supreme court ended by saying: 

“ The great preponderance of the evidence was the other way. That is 
enough.” 

And it handed down a decision in my favor. 

May we not hope that after this board has carefully read and considered the 
record of the evidence presented to them in this case and then compares with 
this the adverse report, that your board will say, in the words of our supreme 
justices. “ The great prepondei'ance of the evidence is the other way; that is 
enough”? 

The iSIerrimack Talley is to-day hampered, annoyed, and retarded by lack of 
freight facilities. We have reached a certain growth; we have the natural 
features to enable us to exi)and away beyond this, but we are surrounded by a 
steel band. We must ask you to burst it for us, so that we may expand. We 
are fed by artificial' means through congested areas, narrow and limited rails 
bringing in and taking out our commodities by the spoonful, when nature 
intended that it should be shoveled to us through the great artery which God 
created to nourish and develop our fruitful valley. 

No other government in th-e world would fail to help out nature that has 
been so lavish in giving us a broad, expansive river for the development of our 
country. No other nation would drive ns to the narrow by-ways for trade when 
there was a broad expansive highway to our door which needed but a little top 
dressing to make it perfect. We feel the prosperity is here to stay. The foolish 
and sad struggle across the ocean has impoverished Europe. Our securities 
which they held and on which we were paying millions in coupon dividends, 
are now returned to us, and in addition we liave all their bonds we can digest. 
All the dividends and interest on their bonds and ours will now be enjoyed by 
us and the money kept in this country. The Europeans will be our slaves for 
years to come. As a result we must iirosper and expand, and all shackles 
which prevent us from doing so must be broken. 

We look to you gentlemen to break these shackles for us in the ISIerrimack 
Valley, to give the finishing touches to a noble river, so that not only the in¬ 
habitants on its banks, but the whole United States may have the full benefit 
of its great commercial—not possibilities, but certainties. 

Mr. RoGEns. Gentlemen, if we can have just two or three minutes more. I 
should like to have Mr. Sherman address yon. 


ST.\TEIV[EXT OF MR. STEPHEN F. SHERMAN. 

Mr. Sherman. IMr. riiainnan and gentlemen, supplementing what Mr. Wil¬ 
liams and IMr. Sutherland have said as to what the possible decision would be 
if there was a water-borne traffic to Lawrence, I went over the work of com- 
]»iling statistics as to what that commerce was to-day. not as to what it might 
1)0 and on that matter, ba.sed on known rates of freight to-day, with which I 
was familiar, by reason of having been in the shipping business for many years, 

7 f(^el certain that there would be a saving for the city of Lawrence alone of 
Tipward of $000,000. Two of the lai-gest firms in Lawrence have signified to me 
the fact that thev would only be too glad to use the waterway on the Merrimack 
if it was improved. There would be a saving of $100.000—$50,000 to the Lau^ 
Ipnk oL fV nml $50,000 to t!,e Nntionnl Pulp & Paper Co. That is .$100,0n0_ 
of a Dossible $500,000 required by Col. Craighill to pay 4 per cent. _ 

^how the importance of Lawi-ence as it relates to the rest of the country in 
this imiu-ovement, I want to say that of all the^manufactured 
T'^nited States 42 per cent come from the New England States, anc. of hmt 4- 
per cent 08 per cent of the raw niatei*ial comes from the IMississippi Aalley; 
that there is a rate of 14 cents freight as against a reasonable charge of 8 cents 
to olhe?portrons of the United States, so that the valley is handicapped by 6 
eents on the pi-oducts that it produces. 


126 


MEREIMACK ElVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 

The commerce of the Merrimack Valley, as it exists to-day—not as it may 
exist, as you g'entlemen may know, by looking at the statistics—is $(),()00,000 
greater than the greatest commerce ever enjoyed by the Erie Canal in the 
highest year of its prosperity. The highest commerce that has ever passed 
through the Erie Canal in any one year was .$308,000,000, and, as Mr. Sutherland 
has told you, the commerce of the Merrimack Valley as eonipiled from the 
census reports was .$314,000,000. 

Consequently, you have not got to figure on what the commerce might be, 
but what it is to-day. The rates of freight would be governed in the improve¬ 
ment of the Merrimack Valley by what exists to-day to other ports. For in¬ 
stance, you may ship coal from Perth Amboy to all the coal terminal ports, 
Port .Tohnson, and Middletown, Conn., for 46 cents. In a conversation I had 
with the superintendent of a large coal company, he stated that 40 cents a ton 
from any one of those ports would give a fair profit to the carrier, and if you 
add 20 cents to that for a freight rate up to the ^lerrimack Valley you would 
then only have a 60-cent rate as against $1.8.5. 

Consequently, I figure that there should not be less than $1 p(,*r ton saving on 
coal. I want to state, gentlemen, that if this project is adopted, that what you 
would save on Lawrence alone would be at least $500,000. 

Mr. Rogers. That is all, Mr. Chairman. We thank you very much. 

The Chairman. We thank you for the well-prepnred evidence you have 
submitted. 


I'APERs Presented at Hearing 


Relative to 
23, 1916. 


]Merrimack River, aIass., aIay 


Centlemen of the board, we come before you to ask you to set aside Lieut. 
Col, Craighiirs report, whereliy he reports unfavorably on the Merrimack River 
navigation project from the sea to Hunts Falls, Lowell, which enterprise was 
pai-tially indorsed by his predecessor. Col. Abbot. We ask you to set aside 
that repoi’t, as it is not in accordance with the facts which we have presented. 
To turn down a project which would cost, according to Col. Craighill, $10,000,000 
figured at 4 per cent equals $400,000 and $100,000 for maintenance, making a 
necessary saving of $.500,000, when we have figured that at the lowest possible 
estimate the annual saving would be over $1,000,000, or more than twice Col. 
Craighiirs estimated necessary saving for the enterprise to receive his in- 
doi'sement. We know more emphatically to-day than ever that the best project 
for rivei’ navigation in the United States is the INIerrimack River. The con¬ 
clusions of Col. Craighill are so remote from the facts of the case, and know¬ 
ing that collective judgment is better than individual judgment, we make this 
appeal to you. Col. Craighill dismisses most of the engineering problems as ap¬ 
parently unworthy of consideration, being easily overcome, and so far we agree 
witl^hini. He passes to the commercial aspects, and to that he devotes his 
entire arguments, but it is our opinion that his entire arguments fail to justify 
the stand he has taken. He quotes three sets of figures—those submitted by 
]\Ir. Mills, engineer of the Essex Co., the company that controls the water 
power at Lawrence; those submitted by Congressman Rogers, of Lowell; and 
those by i\Tr. S. F. Sherman, secretary-manager of the Lawrence Cliainlier of 
Commerce. Secretary Sherman’s figures, although showing the highest saving 
of all the figures submitted, I am prepared to stand by, as they have been ob¬ 
tained after a great deal of sludy and correspondence with marine transporta¬ 
tion companies and are based on prewar rates from southern points to Port¬ 
land, iNIe., which we feel would be about the same cost as transportation to 
Lowell, Lawrence, or Haverhill. 

In Col. Craighiirs first report he figures the possible saving at 20 cents a ton, 
but Mr. IVIills, who is an opponent of the river development project, figures it 
at 23 cents a ton. Therefore, gentlemen, you will see that Col. Craighill’s 
figures are more favorable to the opponents’ side than they are to the side of 
the proponents of the scheme. 

I call attention to the fact that without any reasoning or compiling of figures 
Col. Craighill arbitrarily fixes the saving at 20 cents a ton on 2.500,000 tons of 
freight, which is about half the freight that passes in and out of the Merrimack 
Valley, but we all know that vrater-borne freight is only one-tenth to one-fifth 
the cost of haul by railroad; therefore the figures of the United States en¬ 
gineer, being based on supposition, should not have any bearing on your de¬ 
cision. 



MEREIMACK ElVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


127 


Take the commodity of coal. We in Lawrence and Lowell pay railroad 
cliarjjes of 85 cents^a ton from tidewjiter ports, i)lns IS cents per ton for trans- 
ferriip^ from steamers or barges to railroad cars, plus 3 cents per ton for 
M’eigliing, making a total of $1.00 per ton that coal costs us more than at tide¬ 
water places such as Loston, Lynn, Salem, or Newhuryport. We have deducted 
from $1.06 the 11 cents for extra distances, which would make the same rates as 
those now enjoyed by Portland and receiving points in INIaine, making a saving 
of 95 cents per ton, as correctly ligured by officials of the Lawrence Chamber of 
Commerce. ]Mr. IVIills’s ligures are so far from the real facts of the case and 
coming from an opponent of the scheme, that they may he dismissedrwithout 
further consideration, although they are more favorable to the proponents than 
those of the United States engineer. Th.e ligures which we here present to you 
on five commodities of raw materiads are taken from the Boston & IMaine 
official sheets. In fad, according to re})orts from the mills and dealers in Law¬ 
rence. the amount of coal brought to Lav/rence shows 500,000 tons instead of 
385,225 tons as given by tlie Boston «Is: Maine Railroad. Our argument is based 
on th.e Boston <& Maine figui'es of 385.225 tons to T.awrence, which ligured at 
95 cents a ton saving makes a saving on that commodity of $301,200. The rail¬ 
road ligures of Lowell show 489,000 tons, winch shows a saving of $404,550, and 
to Haverhill. 190,112 tons, which tiguiH'd at 05 cents a ton saving would show 
$127,478, making a total of $953,228 saving annually on coal alone for the three 
cities of Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill, which is almost 10 i)er cent saving 
on Col. Craighill’s estimate for the construction of a $10,000,000 channel, termi¬ 
nals, locks, and sewerage system. 

In addition to these figures there would he a further saving on Haverhill 
freight, as the freight charges wliich have recently gone into operation I’egard- 
ing Haverhill have raised the i)rice on coal freight from 55 to 85 cents a ton. 
Most of the coal for Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill comes from the iMystic 
Wharf, Boston, so that although Lawrence is 8 miles nearer Boston tlian Haver- 
liill, it has paid 30 cents more per ton. 

We will next take the commodity of lumber. Of lumber, Lawrence receives 
58,000 tons, Lowell 43,409 tons, and Haverhill. 50,000 tons. The saving to 
Lawrence would he $55,000, to Lowell $41,238, and to Haverhill $32,500, or a 
total saving on lumber of $128,738. 

Of cotton, Lawrence receives 24.624 tons. Lowell 102,305 tons, a saving can 
he estimatefl at $39,300 to Lawrence and $104,088 for I^owell, making a total 
saving of $203,988. 

Take wool, laiwrence receives 73,712 tons and Lowell 3,905 tons, and we 
here would effect a .saving of $118,000 to Lawrence and $0,248 to Loweil, or a 
total saving on wool of $124,248. 

On hides and leather, which is the last of the five commodities which have 
been tabulated, Lowell and Haverhill are two very impoilant centers with 
100,000 tons to each city, making a saving of $200,000; the total for the 
five commodities—coal, lumber, cotton, wool, and leather—of 1,621,492 tons, 
with a saving of $1,010,202. The amount of freight handled on the Merrimack 
Valley in ’Massachusetts is 5,000,000 tons a year, and there is no doubt in the 
minds of the proponents of this scheme that the annual saving would moi-e than 
double the above figures, as no consideration has been given to the other three 
and a, half million tons of incoming asid outgoing freight. 

Col. Craighill’s conclusions are very much at variance with the facts of the 
conditions. He quotes that the mills of Lawrence receive their coal on the land 
side and could not change their system to i-eceive by water without great ex¬ 
pense. Although the coal pockets are on the land side, many of the l)oilers 
and power plants are on th(' water side, and the mill peoi)le have told me if 
they could effect a substantial savi;^g on coal it would pay them to make the 
necessai'y (‘hanges to receive by uaiter instead of rail. 

The Anunncan Woolen Co., who uses 170,000 tons of co:!l, have considered 
bringing coal t<' tidewater !it Havt'rhill and building a. jui^atc tiolle^ line 
to Lawrence for tiunr supply. This great ('orporation that uses 170,000 tons 
of coal and emplovs 18,000 workers in Lawrence is in favor of this scheme; 
in fact, I hfive not found any of the larger manufacturers in Lawrence who 
are not in favor, but who do not desire to say much in Livor because they are 
tied up with railroad interests and <lo not desire to antagonize the railioad 
companies. The amount of (*apital invested in mill interests in Lawrence 

totals over $90,000,000. 

On page 3,^ Col. Craighill says 
Lawrence and Lowell, 


“The great manufacturing interests of 
wliose consumption of raw materials and production 


1 Page 62 of this document. 







128 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AKD N. H. 


of finished products are included in the statistics of the proponents and relied 
upon by tliein in justifying the proposed iinproveinent, only three or four rep¬ 
resentatives of mills have favored the iuii)rovement. and none*of the others have 
npp('ared or expressed any interest in it.” 

We differ with Col. Craighill on that statement; nor is it correct as far as 
Lawrence is concerned, for of the 120 individual estaldishments in Lawrence 
all except one or two of them favor tills impi-ovement, and the one or two can 
hardly he classed as opponents, hut may he imt in the indiffei’ent class. 

On page 2,^ article No. 5, Col. Craighill’s last report, says: “The figures of 
0 cents iier ton for towage from the mouth of the Merrimack to Lowell and 
return, based on a 1,500-ton barge, appears to me too low. In towing vessels 
up the tributaries of Boston Harbor there is an additional charge of 1 cent per 
ton for steamers and barges and 3 cents per ton for sailing vessels for each 
bridge passed through This is verified by the following quotations from Con¬ 
gressman Rogers.” 

Provided we deduct these charges from tlie figures that we have [u-esented, 
we would still have a very strong case. 

On bridge tolls to Haverhill : Tliei’o ai’o 5 bridges, and the bridge toll, 
acconling to Col. Craighill, for steamei's would reach the sum of $17,315; 8 
bridges to Lawrence, making $45 880; 13 ))ridgos to Lowell, .$06,000. Taken 
on the 3-cent rate on sailing vessels, whiCi brings the anticipated saving con¬ 
siderably lower, it still leaves us a sp!ondi<l margin in favor of the pi'oject. 
tidie extra cost to laiwreuce Ihrough bridge tolls wouhl be $137,640, to Lowell 
$288,061, and to Haverhill, $51,045. After deductiiig that fi'om our estimate of 
$1,610,202 would leave us on the 1-cent charge $1,450,087 and on the 3-cent 
charge $1,132,554. which, even according to Col. CraighilTs ov.m adverse figur¬ 
ing, would show a 10 per cent saving on his highest figures estimated—namely, 
$10,000,000 to give us tlie facilities we desire. We even question the expendi¬ 
ture of $10,000,000, but figure the cost to hardly exceed three-fourths of that 
sum. 

In Col. Craighill’s last report, paragraph 2,' he says his principal reason for 
reporting adversely on this important waterway is that it would not be a 
paying investment. We feel that we can easily prove to any fair-minded body 
of men, whether in the United States service <*r otlierwise, that the facts that 
we have herewith submitted more than prove that it would not only be a pay¬ 
ing investment, but it would be a greater paying investment than any simi¬ 
lar pi’oject which the United States has ever undertaken. 

Col. Craighill says that the effect of a dam at Lion's Mouth and the im¬ 
provement of the river at the mouth by tidal scour would be detrimental. That 
is a matter which does not appear to contain any great objection, even by Col. 
Craighill, and which can be very easily overcome, as we do not intend to 
divert any portion of the water of the river from its regular (.‘ourse or channel 
and that the proi)osed dam would not have any i)erceptible effect on scoui* more 
than the present dams. Regarding .sewerage, the matter of taking sewerage 
out of the river has been very seriously considei-ed by the Legislature of 
Massachusetts during the present term, and it has been turned over to the 
State Board of Health to devise some means to take sewerage and objection- 
nble matter out of the river. 

In paragraph 3,^ Col. Craighill says: “ The most important consideration to 
my mind is the (luestion of whether or not tiu' improvement \vould be a pay¬ 
ing investment for the United States to make for the benefit of our national 
■commerce.” ddiere can not be any question that where a saving of 4 per cent, 
iis figured by Federal oflicers, on a small number of commodities would be 
effected helps to enhance the benefits (h' our national commerce. What has 
eome true regai’ding Glasgow, Manchester, and other European cities through 
water development would be repeated in the Merrimack Valley, where even 
less favorable conditions, from a manufacturing and commercial standpoint, 
prevail tlian at Glasgow or Manchester. We are away in the northeastern 
corner of the United States, far from all sources of })roduction that contribute 
raw materials. We are under greater disadvantages than IManchester or 
Glasgow, because both of those cities have coal and iron in abumlance in their 
immediate vicinity. We have to take our coal, iron, and all raw materials 
many hundreds of miles, and, therefore, if it is necessary for Glasgow and 
Manchester to obtain water service, it is ceidainly far more necessary for us, 
with our consumption of almost 1.000,060 tons of coal annually. 

On page 5® of Col. Craighill’s report that the commerce anticipated on the 
river would probably never materialize, he says: “1 do not doubt that the im- 

‘ Page Cl of this docnineut. ^ Pape CO of tliis docmnent. ^ Page C.‘1 of this document. 






MEERIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


129 


provement of the INIerriiiiack River would result in a sufficient reduction on rail¬ 
road rates to offset whatever saving might be made by water shipment, which 
is really all that is desired by the proponents of the project.” In the first place, 
Col. Craighill’s statement that commerce would probably never materialize on 
the river is in line with the argument used by the stage-coach driver. When 
the question of railroads was first suggested, he said he did not see how the 
railroads could pay when there were not enough people traveling to keep the 
stage coaches going. That his statement regarding all that the proponents of 
this project want is a reduction of railroad rates shows how Col. Craighill has 
failed to grasp a proper conception of the noble purpose which the proponents 
have in view. Our purpose is not to obtain more favorable railroad rates, but 
to develop our present industrial conditions still further, and give them the 
proper freight facilities, and it is also our desire to develop a faster and more 
economical route by water to New York and southern points than the railroads 
at the present time are able to supply. In fact, the object of the proponents of 
this scheme is to make Haverhill, Lawrence, and Lowell a second Glasgow or 
a second Manchester. Therefore our purpose is much greater and nobler than 
Col. Craighill conceives.” 

Now I will give you gentlemen some of the other facts and figures regarding 
the IMerrimack Valley, and how it compares with other parts of our country 
and other parts of the world: 

Slome important facts about the Massachusetts part of the Merrimack Valley. 

[Compiled from the archives in the state house of Massachusetts.] 

Total population of cities and towns adjoining the Merrimack 


River in Massachusetts_ 307, 540 

Total value of assessed estates_$262, 710, 204 

Total number of manufacturing establishments_ 814 

Total capital invested_$188,152, 336 

Total number of wage earners employed during year_ 85, 069 

Total wages paid during the year_ $42, 004, 459 

Total value of stock and materials used_$116, 870, 360 

Total value of product_$196, 595, 077 

Total value of raw material and product combined_$313, 465, 437 


The value of the raw material used, plus the value of the finished product, 
equals 7i per cent of the entire foreign trade of the United States. 

It equals in value 12^ per cent of the entire foreign trade of France. 

It equals in value 30 per cent of the foreign trade of Canada, where 
$360,000,000 has been spent on rivers and harbors to develop foreign commerce. 

It almost equals in value 25 per cent of the foreign commerce of Austria- 
Hungary or the Russian Empire. 

It is 50 per cent of the entire foreign trade of China and more than 50 per 
cent of the entire foreign trade of Japan. 

It is greater in value than the foreign commerce of any of the countries in 
the Western Hemisphere with the exception of the United States, Canada, 
Brazil, and the Argentine Republic. 

It exceeds in value the foreign commerce of any of the seaports in the Western 
Hemisphere with the exception of New York and Buenos Aires. 

The value of the raw material used is greater than all the exports of the 
United States to all South American countries in 1914. 

Regarding seaports. 


It exceeds the foreign trade of Galveston by over-$24, 000, 000 

It exceeds the foreign trade of New Orleans by over- 61, 000, 000 

It exceeds the foreign trade of Boston by- 97, 000, 000 

It exceeds the foreign trade of Manchester, England (where 
$100,000,000 has been spent in constructing a canal 36 miles long 

with an extensive system of docks) by- 37, 000, 000 

Traffic on Manchester ship canal 5,000,000 tons, the same amount 
as now handled in the Merrimack Valley. 

It exceeds the foreign trade of Glasgow, Scotland (where 
$55,000,000 has been spent in dredging and dock construction) by_ 66, 000, 000 


H. Doc. 1813, 64-2-9 
















130 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


It represents trade of over $1,000,000 per day for every working day in the 
year. 

The foreign trade of the United States is $400 per capita. 

The trade of the Merrimack Valley is over $1,000 per capita. 

Almost all this immense freight amounting in value to over $1,000,000 per day 
is brought in and goes out by railroad on account of not having water trans¬ 
portation facilities. 

The demand for some other method of transportation other than one line of 
railroad was never more important than during the last year when freight from 
New York, which used to take 3 to 4 days, now takes in some cases 30 days and 
freight from points in New Jersey takes 2 to 3 months. 

Considering all the facts that we have here presented, and the important 
place which the Merrimack Valley holds as one of the great manufacturing cen¬ 
ters of this country, we are of opinion that you can not sustain the report fur¬ 
nished you by Col. Craighill, and we therefore ask you to give this matter the 
most serious consideration, because on it depends to a great extent the life and 
industry of 307,000 people in the INIerrimack Valley, with a trade far in excess of 
that of perhaps any other community in the United States. We are of opinion 
that Col. Craighill’s report should not be sustained, as we consider that his 
estimate of 20 cents a ton saving on 2,500,000 tons of freight is merely guess 
work, and that his estimate of $10,000,000 is excessive. We feel that the evi¬ 
dence we have presented to him has not been thoroughly considered, and that, 
in turning down such a meritorious project, he has been guided more by the 
adversaries of the project than by the facts and figures presented to him. 

If you can not sustain this appeal in its entirety, in view of the fact that the 
State of Massachusetts has shown its good faith in this project by voting 
$1,000,000 to spend along with the Federal Government, you ought to say what 
part of this project the State ought to pay. If some agreement could be ar¬ 
rived at whereby the Federal Government would carry out this scheme as far 
as the Lawrence dam, the State of Massachusetts to pay the expense of cut¬ 
ting through the Lawrence Dam and dredging as far as Hunts Falls. If you 
can not recommend the whole project, you at least ought to tell us what pro¬ 
portion you feel that the United States would be justified in undertaking. We 
will tell you now, that for the United States to undertake the improvement as 
far as Ward Hill only, will not be satisfactory to tbe people of the Merrimack 
Valley. We are not in any position to pledge the State, but we feel that a 
project full of so much benefit not only to the Merrimack Valley but to New 
England and the United States ought to demand from you more than negative 
reply. We do not know what an array of facts and figures is necessary to con¬ 
vince such a splendid body as this, but we do know that if these figures were 
submitted to an impartial body of men that their verdict would be entirely in 
our favor. We therefore place the entire matter in your hands having faith 
in your engineering and commercial judgment that you will let us know at the 
earliest possible moment how far you can recommend the United States to go 
with the project. 


LETTER OF THE MAYOR OF LAWRENCE, MASS. 

May 20, 1916. 

Gentlemen : Believing, as I do, in the efficacy of a deeper Merrimack 
River to help Lawrence develop her present industries and obtain new ones; 
to secure quicker and cheaper transportation for her raw materials inbound 
and her finished product outbound; to relieve the present overcrowded condition 
of the rail-carriers’ lines and terminals and incidental car shortage; and finally, 
to place Lawrence in that close touch with the outside world which is not en¬ 
joyed by an inland city, I wish to go strongly on record as disagreeing with the 
district engineer. Col. Craighill, in his report that the project had no economic 
value. 

I deeply regret my inability to appear before you and speak in favor of this 
iproject, which has been so dear to the hearts of so many of us for so many 
years. 

Mr. A. B. Sutherland, who will present this letter in my absence, has un¬ 
limited data to prove to you that the project is economical and practicable. 

The city of Lawrence has pledged itself to build and maintain piers and 
wharves on the river front. 

The State of Massachusetts has appropriated $1,000,000 as an evidence of 
good faith and belief in the project. 


MEEKIMACK EIVEE, MASS. AND N. H. 131 


At a most conservative estimate, tlie saving on raw material alone would 
be in excess of the required interest on $10,000,000. 

I ^yish to impress on the members of your board that I thoroughly believe 
in this project and that Lawrence is a unit and squarely behind it. 

It is a project of merit and is devoid of engineering objections. 

I wish to make my strongest plea for your thoughtful consideration of the 
arguments presented by Mr. Sutherland and that you will receive them with 
an open mind, unprejudiced by the adverse report of your colleague, whom we 
hold in the highest esteem, but with whom we fail to agree. 

Yours, very respectfully. 


The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. 


John J. Hurley, 

Mayor. 


statement of the LOWELL BOARD OF TRADE. 

Gentlemen, for a number of years the residents of the Merrimack Valley 
have been urging that suitable plans be adopted for making the river navigable. 
With that in view your engineers have made a critical study of the situation 
and have reported their findings. In the meantime the valley residents have 
endeavored to furnish statistics to prove that the project is a good business 
venture. These statistics we still adhere to, except that in the progress of the 
past two years we are able to make considerable additions to their impressive¬ 
ness. In Lowell, for instance, the total freight tonnage handled by the rail¬ 
roads has increased tremendously, the Boston & Maine system alone receiving 
a monthly gain in its freight receipts of about $40,000. We believe, therefore, 
that all the figures presented to your engineer as representing the tonnage of 
the valley are capable of decided expansion, and that the growth of this past 
two years may safely be taken as indicative of the future of the cities of the 
Merrimack Valley. 

The Lowell Board of Trade has made an honest endeavor to present the 
Lowell argument based on facts and not on fancies. We have no desire to urge 
upon the Federal or State governments anything that is unreasonable and 
we believe thoroughly in the policy which will force the Merrimack Valley to 
prove its case and rest the decision on its merits. We do believe, however, 
that the Merrimack River possesses unusual elements of merit for development 
as a navigable stream by the Federal Government. In the search for informa¬ 
tion the Lowell Board of Trade has collected the following facts which 
principally govern our own attitude toward the project. 

On March 24. 1915, the manufacturers of Lowell were invited to meet and 
discuss the river project. Practically all the mill agents in Lowell responded, 
and with them came Mr. Hiram F. Mills, engineer for the locks and canals. 
Mr. Mills acted as spokesman for those present and read a document which 
he subsequently filed with Col. Craighill. He frankly opposed the project and 
presented his reasons. At the conclusion of his presentation of the case he 
was asked if, in his opinion, the river channel would affect the present water 
power at Lowell. He replied that it would not. He further stated that the 
river channel and a suitable connection of its terminus with the manufacturing 
centers in Lowell could be easily accomplished. Basing our opinions on these 
two principal factors, for we had no desire to impair the facilities with which 
our existing industries were operating, we have presented to your engineer 
an accumulation of data bearing on the commercial value of the Merrimack 
River channel. In his report on these Col. Craighill takes the position that the 
river channel would not be valuable in a business way; yet when he met a 
committee of Lowell men on August 5, 1915, he assured us that he had no 
hesitation in saying to us that the channel would be ivorth $10,000,000 to the 
valley cities and towns. The whole question seems to hinge on just what is 
the valid interest of the Federal Government in this project. Our answer to 
that is the immense total of commerce in the Merrimack Valley, the existence 
of several large cities and many thriving towns, and the very evident tendency 
of our section to expand commercially. Furthermore, we argue that the Fed¬ 
eral Government policy has led us to expect a favorable view of the Merrimack 
Valley possibilities, inasmuch as millions of dollars have been expended on 
what seem to us to be projects of far less merit and importance. If the Federal 
Government is interested in many of its present river projects, it surely should 
be in the Merrimack. 


132 


MEREIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 

We wish to point out to your board the fact that the only person in the 
entire Merrimack Valley to olfer opposition in public to the project is Mr. 
Hiram F. Mills, the water-power engineer for the locks and canals and Essex 
Co. It is not the fact that he is open in his opposition that we wish to em- 
l)hasize, for we have welcomed his tangible evidence of interest in the plans. 
But he stated to Col. Craighill at the public hearing that he voiced the senti¬ 
ments of every mill agent and mill treasurer in Lowell in declaring that the 
channel is not wanted. We wish, in rebuttal, to remind you that at the very 
hearing at which Mr. Mills made this assertion testimony in behalf of the 
river project was given by Mr. F. A. Flather, treasurer of the Boott Mills, 
Mr. A. D. Milliken, agent of the Hamilton Manufacturing Co., Mr. F. A. 
Bowen, agent of the Appleton Co., as well as by Hon. Butler Ames, head of 
the Heinze Electric Co. and Wamesit Power Co., George S. Motley, president 
of the Lowell Gas Light Co., and others. Mr. Mills has also assured us that 
it is his opinion that the river development is sure to come some time in the 
future, and we set that against the assertion of Col. Craighill that the mill 
properties along the river bank would be unable to meet the requirements for 
water-frontage facilities without extreme expense. Mr. Mills knows these situa¬ 
tions perfectly, and yet he sees a river channel as certain at a future time. 
We might further declare that the Lowell mills have considered definite plans 
for providing water-front facilities to serve their needs. However, it is cer¬ 
tainly true that in any public hearing on the river project, whether given by 
United States, State, or commission authorities, Mr. Mills is the only person 
to offer any argument in opposition; and the only mill agents or treasurers to 
say anything have spoken in favor of the project. 

Since our last presentation of arguments for the river channel, events have 
conspired to prove the need for additional transportation facilities in the Merri¬ 
mack Valley. Embargoes have prevented freight movements, and delays that 
have seriously hampered Lowell industries have been constant because of the 
inability of the railroads to furnish needed facilities. The possession of the 
alternative of a river channel would have been tremendously helpful. It 
would have eliminated much of the congestion and delays. 

Many other points can be emphasized to meet Col. Craighill’s findings, such 
as the fact that the cities along the river have taken steps to guarantee munici¬ 
pal terminal facilities; that the Lowell mills are actually depending to-day on 
water power only to about one-third of their entire power needs; that the 
change in the system of receiving coal, so far as Lowell is concerned, would not 
be inconvenient, as the power plants are, generally speaking, located on the 
water front; that it is practically certain that the river channel would serve 
to cause reductions in freight rates by the railroads, although the Boston & 
Maine is on record as declaring that this will not necessarily be so; that a 
movement is already on foot in our State to require the removal of objection¬ 
able sewage from the river; that the statistics and estimates which we have 
offered have been based on actual information, while those submitted by Mr. 
Mills, our only opponent, have been admittedly assumptions. 

We have noted with interest the recommendations made by Col. Abbot in 
transmitting Col. Craighill’s report to the War Department. Col. Abbot points 
out the fact that there is, at least, a proportional interest on the part of the 
United States Government. We would like to see that proportion scientifically 
worked out, and that without relinquishing our original position that the 
Merrimack River is important enough for decisive Federal action. 

Tiie jMerriniack River is a big stream. It is wide, and many miles of it are 
deep enough now to transport sizable vessels. It winds through cities whose 
commercial importance, taken as a whole, can not be matched in any 40-mile 
strip of river in this country, and these cities are growing beyond the possi¬ 
bilities of being served by the present railroad facilities or any they are likely 
to provide. We do not believe, therefore, that we are asking anything un¬ 
reasonable and we thoroughly believe that we are entirely consistent in urging 
that further examination be made of this project. Having confidence in the 
honesty of our figures and knowing that our purpose is solely to assist in 
solving this problem properly, we feel assured that your board will grant our 
request and cooperate with us to the fullest extent. 

For the Lowell Board of Trade; 

Robert F. Maeden, President. 

To the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


133 


STATEMENT OF INTERESTED PARTIES. 

Wo are impressed with the fact that an adverse report from Col. Craighill 
is a handicap which we must contend against, hnt considering that report in 
the light of the evidence which has been presented and which is before the 
full board for consideration, we feel it should not be an insurmountable ob¬ 
stacle; and considering, further, the fact that under the jurisdiction of the 
Commonwealth of IMassachusetts a most thorough investigation of this project 
has been conducted and conclusions have been arrived at, based upon facts 
which are incontrovertible, it does not seem that the adverse report of any one 
man, no matter who he may be, should be accepted without every man on this 
honorable board of appeal weighing the evidence carefully. 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has arrived at conclusions. It feels 
sure of its grounds. It has shown its faith in the same by a substantial ap¬ 
propriation. Its investigations have been most thorough. The labor of many 
skillful men has been expended for years past in gathering data which are 
accurate and reliable and uncontradicted to prove to you that the Merrimack 
River is practically the only stream in the world that has a commerce of 
hundreds of millions annually already developed and untold millions to be 
developed which has been absolutely neglected by the General Government so 
far as navigation is concerned and left entirely to its own salvation. It can 
challenge the world to point out another river in either the Eastern or Western 
Hemisphere that has the volume of water, the population on its banks, 
the developed industries and developed commerce, and the natural resources 
and tremendous possibilities for future expansion, and yet (although it has 
contributed generously toward the development of rivers and harbors in all 
parts of this country of infinitely less importance) there has been no recipro¬ 
cation in its behalf. 

Notwithstanding this adverse report, the people of Massachusetts know 
what they have in the Merrimack River and they know what their rights are. 
Until recent years they have been asleep to their rights, they have gone along 
industriously with their own developments, and have been prospering slowly 
without lifting their heads to take a wider survey and to say to the General 
Government, “ Here we may be able to get along without you, but we will 
make much more rapid strides with your help. We have helped others for 
decades by our contributions tOAvard the General Government. Now come and 
help us and we will return it one hundredfold by the acceleration we will get 
by the help which it is the function of the General Government to give us.” 
We mean business now and we do not propose, after having satisfied ourselves 
by data which can not be questioned that we have the one river of magnitude 
in the world that has been neglected, that this neglect shall continue, and until 
we have exhausted every remedy to have this wrong righted. An adverse re¬ 
port of no one man should block a great project that is believed in by the 
entire body of a great State, Avith the exception of a feAV*having selfish interests 
to the contrary, a project Avhich will be of lasting benefit to a dense population 
in the Merrimack Valley and the means of creating their shores into commer¬ 
cial ports of national and Avorhl importance. 

We trust that the‘hearing in this appeal Avill interest this board enough to 
cause every man on this board of appeal to read the evidence and try to dis¬ 
cover for liimself in the light of the evidence hoAv an adA’erse report could be 
made based on such evidence. With the evidence before you each has the 
same opportunity as had Col. Craighill to arrive at an independent conclusion. 
The evidence has been gathered after great labor and diligence and has the 
prestige and dignity of having been gathered under tlie jurisdiction of a com¬ 
mission appointed by the great and general court of IMassachusetts, Avho are 
prepared to vouch for its accuracy, and Avith proper regard for the comity and 
courtesy due to the State of Massachusetts it should not be pushed aside 
lightly. In an appeal to the full bench of our Supreme Court of Massachusetts 
the decision of the lower court undoubtedly bears weight, hut when the appeal 
goes up on the whole evidence that evidence is read and considered carefully 
by each of the supreme justices, and if they find the decision is not justified 
by the evidence there is no hesitation on their part to set it aside. Should we 
not expect the same from this board? In a case I recently argued before our 
supreme court, on which I went up on the whole record from an adverse verdict 
of a jury caused by a prejudiced and unfair charge of the trial justice, after 


134 


MEREIMACK EIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 

reviewing tlie evidence and commenting on the charge excepted to, the supreme 
court ended by saying, “ The great preponderance of the evidence was the 
other way; tliat is enough,” and handed down a decision in my favor. 
]May we not hope that after this board has carefully read and considered the 
record of the evidence presented to them in this case and then compares this 
with the adverse report that your board will say, in the vvords of our supreme 
justices, ” The great preponderance of the evidence is the other way; that is 
enough.” 

The Merrimack Valley is to-day hampered, annoyed, and retarded by lack of 
freight facilities. We have reached a certain growth; we have the natural 
features to enable us to expand away beyond this, but we are surrounded l)y a 
steel band ; we must ask you to burst it for us, so we may expand. We are 
fed by artificial means through congested areas, narrow and limited rails bring 
in and take out our commodities by the spoonful, when nature intended it 
should be shoveled to us through the great artery which God created to nourish 
and develop our fruitful valley. No other Government in the world would fail 
to help out nature that has been so lavish in giving us a broad expansive river 
for the development of our country. No other nation would drive us to the 
narrow byways for trade when there was a l)road, expansive highway to our 
<loor which needed but a little top dressing to make it perfect. We feel that 
prosperity is here to stay. The foolish and sad struggle across the ocean has 
impoverished Europe. Our securities which they held and on which we were 
paying millions in coupons and dividends are now returned to us, and in addi¬ 
tion we have all their bonds we can digest. All the dividends and interest on 
their bonds and ours will now })e enjoyed by us, and the money kept in this 
country. The Europeans will be our slaves for years to come. As a result, we 
must prosper and expand and all shackles which prevent us from doing so must 
be broken. 

We look to you gentlemen to break these shackles for us in the Merrimack 
Valley, to give the finishing touches to a noble river, so that not only the in¬ 
habitants on its banks, but the whole United States may have the full benefit 
of its great commercial—not possibilities but certainties. 

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. 

STATEMENT OF MR. W. F. WILLIAMS. 

Before coming to a consideration of the project in its relation to the commer¬ 
cial requirements of the communities to be benefited, I think it is well to devote 
a few minutes to a consideration of the fundamental principles involved in the 
transportation problem that confronts Massachusetts. 

The recent embargo on rail freight shows the present inability of New Eng¬ 
land railroads to handle a very material increase in their normal business, and 
only for the relief affovded by a diversion of large amounts of freight to water 
points like Providence, Pall River, and New Bedford was a situation avoided 
that would have seriously crippled the manufacturing industries of New 
England. 

It is becoming daily more apparent that water routes must be utilized to a 
greater extent than ever before for the carriage of bulky freight, and that dis¬ 
tribution in much of New England can be better and more economically made 
from the coast inward than from the interior outward. 

The greater part of the jiianufacturing centers in Massachusetts are on water 
routes. That was the reason of their location, and in most cases it antedates 
the coming of the railroad. It is also largely the reason for the high cost of 
rail carriage in IVjiassachusetts under pre.sent inethods of operation. 

Some years ago Mr. Mellen made the statement that from a railroad point of 
view New England was simply a great freight yard, and it covers the situation 
in a nutshell. It is a great problem in economic distribution in which the 
natural water terminals must be utilized in an ever-increasing degree. 

IMr. Mellen showed his appreciation of this situation when lie secured control 
of practically every established water route east of New York City. The water 
lines are the salvation of the present freight situation in Massachusetts, and the 
threat recently made by an official of the New Haven Railroad at a hearing 
before the Interstate Commerce Commission, that the railroad would increase 
its facilities and do all the business by rail that is now performed by the Sound 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 135 

Lines, if they were forced to give np their control of these lines under the 
terms of the Panama act, is simply ludicrous in its impotency. 

A very large amount of freight to and from Lowell and Lawrence is shipped 
via the New Bedford boat line. Ordinarily the business of this line is cared for 
hy two boats, one each way a day. At times this winter and spring it has 
recpiired four boats to handle this business, and they could have had more if 
they had had the boats and the wharf room. 

The great demand for water carriers, as a result of the war in Europe, has 
seriously reduced the capacity of the coastwise commerce and thrown a greater 
burden upon the railroads, but this will soon he regulated, and in a way it may 
be a henelicial hardship if it opens the eyes of shippers to the value of water 
routes. 

It is most unfortunate that the railroads have secured such a control over 
the water lines, because they have operated them to protect rail rates rather 
than to develop the most rapid and economical transportation system, as evi¬ 
denced hy the fact that independent water lines have found it impossible to 
exist wherever interchange of business with the railroad was essential to their 
success. 

A sti'ictly coastwise express service has yet be tried out, but it is bound to 
come and will undoubtedly solve some of the present transportation troubles. 

The lack of any attempt to standardize harbor and river improvements has 
impaired their value and in many instances it has been the cause of inadequate 
utilization of large expenditures of money. It is also true that lack of local 
cooperation has been responsible to some extent for these failures. 

A harbor or river improvement must fit existing water carriers adapted to 
the requirements of the community to be served, or it will fail of its object 
almost as surely as a narrow gauge railroad in a territory where all of the 
connections are of the standard gauge. Experience has shown that it is extremely 
difficult to build up a marine service on a restricted draft; as a matter of fact, 
it must be a local venture. 

The tendency of water carriers in the coastwise trade as well as in foreign 
commerce is to deeper draft and larger tonnage. This is disastrous both to the 
shoal harbors and the small shippers, and it is to be hoped that the Federal 
Government will lend its aid to several projects now under consideration, such 
as the improvement of the Connecticut River and the Taunton River, that are 
designed to meet the dimensions of the New York Barge Canal. The carrying 
out of these improvements will lead to the creation of shoal draft carriei‘s of 
some seagoing qualities that in time would add greatly to the commercial value 
of many of our small harbors. 

There should be a greater effort to coordinate harbor improvements with 
commercial requirements and developments. 

Coming now to a consideration of the project for the improvement of the 
Merrimack River, its status at present appears to be that Col. Craighill has 
made a survey and an estimate of the cost of providing a channel 200 feet 
wide and 18 feet deep to Ward Hill, Haverhill, and the Merrimack Valley 
Waterway Board has made a survey aud estimate of the cost of a canalization 
of the river from this point to Lowell on the same basis of depth and width. 
The details of tlie latYer investigation have been most clearly set forth in the 
printed report of the board with which you are all familiar. Col. Craighill’s 
report, however, has not been printed and is not therefore open to discussion 
in detail, although certain features are more or less matters of common 
knowledge and I understand can be properly referred to at this hearing. The 
most important question that is raised by the report, and which I assume is 
the basis of this hearing, is the conclusion of Col. Craighill that the benefits 
to be secured by the improvement are not commensurate with the cost. 

The cost of the improvement from the sea to Ward Hill, Haverhill, as esti- 
mate<l by Col. Craighill, will be about $8,000,000 for a dredged channel 200 
feet wide and 18 feet deep at mean low water, or $2,750,000 for a dam at the 
Lions Mouth with a dredged channel above the dam and to the sea of the 
above dimensions. 

The cost of the improvement above Ward Hill to Hunts Falls in Lowell, as 
estimated by the Merrimack Valley Waterway Board, will be $5,443,600, but 
this provides for a turning basin, power plant, and locks at Ward Hill, whereas 
all but the turning basin will be eliminated by the construction of a dam at the 
Lions Mouth. Therefore, a deduction of $1,117,000 may be made in the estimate 


136 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. II. 

of the cost above Haverhill, which will make the cost of the combined projects 
$7,076,600 as per the following details: 

Estimated cost by watericay board—Ward Hill, Ilavcrliill, to Hunts Falls, 

Lowell. 


Locks, turning l)asin, and power plant at Ward Hill_ $807, 000 

Dam at Kimballs Island___ 310, 000 

Lock and channel at Lawrence_ 921, 000 

Channel, Lawrence to Lowell_ 3, 405, 600 


5, 443, 600 

Estimated cost of dam at the Lions Mouth and dredging channel 
from Newbiiryport to Ward Hill, by Col. Craighill_ 2,750,000 


Total _ 8,193, 600 

Deduct for locks and dam at Ward Hill_1,117, 000 


Net total of combined estimates_ 7, 076, 600 


Col. Craighill further estimates that it may cost $3,000,000 to provide ter¬ 
minals, pay damages and change bridges, and thereby arrives at the conclusion 
that the total cost of the project will be $10,000,000, upon which there should 
be an annual return in the way of an actual saving in freight charges equivalent 
to 4 per cent, plus an estimated maintenance cost of $100,000, or a total of 
$500,000. After giving some consideration to the probable saving in freight 
charges he has evidently arrived at the conclusion that it will not amount to 
$500,000 per year. 

Before discussing this question further it may be as Avell to briefly refer to 
two matters covered in the report and discussed at the later hearings from 
which I learn that Col. Craighill is somewhat concerned that a dam at the 
Lions INIouth may seriously affect the maintenance of the present entrance 
between the jetties at the mouth of the river, and also that the pooling of 
water carrying so much sewage may produce a very unsanitary situation above 
the dam. 

Of course, the tidal action of the river will be considerably reduced, but the 
fresh water discharge will continue for whatever it may be worth. As a matter 
of fact, the ultimate effect at the jetties is a speculation and one man’s guess 
is about as good as another’s. It may be well to bear in mind that there are 
some very good harbors on the IMassachusetts coast without rivers. The con¬ 
struction of a dam at the Lions Mouth will probably change to some extent the 
conditions at the entrance; but I do not think it necessarily follows that the 
efficiency of the jettties will be seriously impaired, or that the difficulties of the 
problem will be increased. On the contrary, I am not so sure but that they may 
be improved. 

The sewage question is wholly independent of the commercial development 
of the river, and whether a dam is or is not built there will come a time when 
the sewage will either be taken out or so treated that it will become innocuous. 
Therefore I do not think you need concern yourselves about that phase of the 
situation, and Vv^e come then to the real issue as to whether or not the probable 
returns upon the investment will justify it from a commercial point of view. 

I appreciate the desire of the engineers to be able to show that the saving 
in freight rates that will result from contemplated river and harbor improve¬ 
ments will at least amount to 4 per cent interest and annual maintenance 
charges upon the estimated cost of the project. I venture to say, however, that 
very few river and hai-bor improvements in the past 25 years could meet such a 
requirement at the time of their adoption. 

As a matter of fact, it is only when dealing with communities removed from 
water transportation like the locality under consideration that an actual and 
substantial saving on rates can be shown, because rail rates to water points 
have always been based upon the water rate to that point, in proportion, of 
course, to its water facilities. For instance. New Bedford has always had 
water rates on all commodities that could possibly come by water, notwith¬ 
standing that for years its channel depth would not admit of water shipment 
by the usual carriers in some of those commodities. Therefore, if New Bed¬ 
ford had been obliged to show a saving on prospective inward and outward 
business, based upon the existing rail and water rates, equivalent to 4 per cent 
upon the cost of the project just completed as a prerequisite to securing the 













MEERIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


137 


fippiopriation, it would never have ft'ot it. But it can be shown beyond a 
(piestion of doubt that the returns from the Federal investments in New Bed¬ 
ford Harbor have been far in excess of the entire outlay. Of course there has 
been a saving in rates, but the beneiits are \videspread and sometimes in direc¬ 
tions that were not anticipated when the project was exploited. As an example, 
New Bedford will soon have the largest public warehouse capacity in the State, 
outside of Boston, hut it has taken several years to bring about this develop¬ 
ment, and it has come entirely as the result of the combination of rail and 
water transportation facilities. It is also interesting to note at this time that 
the latest addition to the warehouse equipment will liave a capacity of 500,000 
bales of cotton, and it is to he built by AVilliam Whitman, who is also a large 
mill owner in Ijawrence. The warehouse will not be limited to cotton, but the 
bale of cotton is used as a unit of measure because it is the most comprehensive 
standard in a textile center. 

Now, there are those who argue that all such developments are the result 
of subtraction, that every profit means a loss to some one, and that if water 
transportation is given to a community that hasn’t it, then some existing route 
or locality must lose its equivalent. The argument might be good if we have 
reached the limit of our growth; otherwise it will lead to the serious economic 
calamity of stagnation or over-centralization of industrial effort. There seems 
to be a suspicion that in some way the benefits derived from the proposed im¬ 
provement of the Merrimack River will be fully offset by losses in other direc¬ 
tions, but you can easily satisfy yourselves that this is a fallacy if you will 
study the commercial development of cities like Providence, Fall River, and 
New Bedford, where the Federal Government has spent considerable sums of 
money to secure channel deptlis that fit the present requirements of coastwise 
commerce. 

It takes years to secure these improvements which provide ample opportunity 
for the readjustment of interests that might be adversely affected if the changes 
took place in a short space of time. 

Taking up the discussion of commodities that will be most affected by direct 
water transportation, I want to say a few words about coal and cotton, as they 
naturally have received the most attention by the parties interested in this 
improvement, because they are used iii large quantities by their communities. 

It is axiomatic that a water point with adequate depth gets its coal at water 
rates, because no railroad can compete with water carriage, and this would be 
true of cotton were it not for certain artificial conditions that are destined to be 
changed in the near future. 

Coal .—It appears that the rate on steam coal to Lowell and Lawrence 
is normallv 85 cents per ton more than to Salem or Boston, and the added 
cost to Haverhill is about 60 cents per ton, so that the issue in arriving 
at the value of the improvement seems to hinge upon how much of this differ¬ 
ence can be saved if coal could be delivered direct by water to the cities named. 

There seems to be a general agreement that the annual consumption of coal 
for power on the IMerrimack River to I^owell nuiy be taken at 1,200,000 tons. 
The saving is variouslv estimated from 25 cents to 50 cents a ton on shipments 
varying from 50 per«cent to 100 per cent of the total consumption. In my 
opinion the quantity shipped by water will depend entirely upon the facilities. 
If they are adequate in the sense that they can be utilized by existing coal 
carriers, then it will all be shipped by water. This is the experience of all 
ports such as l^rovidence. Fall River, New Bedfoid, and Boston, wheie the diaft 
and discharging facilities are adequate. At present there is a considerable 


available on a 17-foot draft, but over a million tons of 
attractive proposition, and some one will be sure 


freight an¬ 
te want to 


tonnage 
nually is an 
Ccii*i’v it 

The rite is more difficult to forecast, but I can not see why it should be more 
to the mouth of the river than to Portland, which, I understand, has a rate only 
10 to 15 cents more than to Boston. The present rate to Newburyport is no 

as the existing draft is not sufficient and therefore the 


basis for comparison, 
is 


tonnage is small. Coal rates exhibit peculiar inconsistencies; for instance, 
they are about the same to Boston as to Providence, Fall River, and New Bed¬ 
ford, notwithstanding the greater distance to Boston. In view of the size of 
the Merrimack River tonnage it would not be at all surprising if the late to t le 
mouth of the river should be the same as to Boston, and in no event will it be 

more than the rate to Portland. , , 

I note that in one communication Mr. Mills makes the cost to NewbuiypOTt 

33 cents more than to Boston and 10 cents more per ton in the mill yard by 


138 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 

the river than by rail from Boston. In another statement he estimates the cost 
to Hunts Falls at 20 cents more per ton than to Salem and assumes the cost 
from this point to the mill yard at 60 cents per ton, based upon the cost of 
hauling a very small quantity by motor truck, and arrives at a net saving of 
5 cents per ton by the river route. In both estimates the principal item of cost 
is the delivery to the mill from Hunts Falls, while the rest of the cost is based 
entirely upon distance, which, as I have already shown, does not control the 
rates to principal water points. 

Mr. Mills places the present cost of unloading and delivering coal to the mills 
in Lowell at 56 cents per ton and* applies the same cost at Hunts Falls. I have 
very little doubt hut what this price would be materially low^ered by the com¬ 
petition that would prevail with a public terminal and generally broader market 
conditions for this commodity. 

In my opinion, a reasonable estimate of the saving in cost of soft coal by all 
water to Lowell over the present water-and-rail cost will be 30 cents per ton 
on the minimum mill-yard rate of 85 cents, but the testimony shows that this 
low rate is only enjoyed by those mills that have tracks to their yards, and to 
all other consumers the difference in cost is nearer $1 per ton. Therefore to 
this class the saving would be greater than 30 cents per ton. The saving to 
Newburyport, Amesbury, Haverhill, and a part of Lawrence would also average 
more per ton, so that it is not unreasonable to assume a net saving on soft 
coal of at least 40 cents per ton. Now it will also be possible to make a saving 
on hard coal because it can come cheaper by water than by rail, although it 
may take longer to establish the change; but some allowance should be made 
for this business in your consideration of the benefits to follow the proposed 
improvement. 

Cation .—As I have already stated, the routing of cotton to New England is 
controlled by purely artificial conditions that make it very difficult to show by 
a comparison of rates any substantial advantage in favor of water routes, 
although there is a large amount of cotton shipped to Massachusetts by water 
and it is steadily growing. 

The shipment of cotton to Massachusetts mills has been almost if not entirely 
controlled by the railroads as the result of certain peculiarities of the business 
as conducted in this State: First, all cotton except the low grades is bought 
on samples and the mill insists upon receiving the actual bale from which the 
sample was drawn; this naturally results in the shipment of small lots and 
from many different points. Second, the shipper pays the freight, and as he 
is only concerned in his own shipment, which is generally in small lots and 
always starts from a railroad point, the routing is left to the railroad company. 
Therefore for many years the rate on cotton to the mill centers in Massachu¬ 
setts, including even New Bedford and Fall River, has been the same, whether 
it came all rail or all water; but there is no direct water route to either of 
these points, and all cotton received by water comes by the way of the Sound 
lines from New York City. However, in spite of this unnatural diversion, the 
receipts of cotton by water at New Bedford have steadily increased until this 
year, when there has been a considerable increase by rail as a result of the 
foreign demand for steam vessels. 

During the cotton-shipping season of 1914 and 1915 New Bedford received 
for its own mills 92,698 bales by water and 227,776 bales by rail, and for reship¬ 
ment to interior points it received by water 148,975 bales. 

The rate on cotton from New Orleans to New Bedford is 33 cents per 100 
pounds and ^5 cents to Portland, but it is 50 cents per 100 pounds to Lawrence, 
as I am informed; but whether this is all rail or part rail by way of New Bed¬ 
ford or Portland I have not been able to learn. On the face of the figures there 
appears to be a difference of 17 cents in favor of New Bedford and 15 cents in 
favor of Portland, and certainly some portion of it could be saved to Lawrence 
and Lowell if there was navigation on the river. If it were only 5 cents per 
hundredweight it would amount to 25 cents per bale, which is equivalent to 
$125,000 per year on the cotton used by these two cities. 

The present peculiar conditions controlling the shipment of cotton to Massa¬ 
chusetts will no doubt be changed in the near future. It is a singular fact 
that there is no direct water line between New Orleans or Galveston and any 
point east of New York when it is recalled that more than 50 per cent of the 
cotton raised in this country is shipped out of those two ports. Mill managers 
are learning that water shipment is much more rapid than by rail and they 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


139 


are already requiring shippers to route cotton by water lines. New Orleans 
has lecently completed a very extensive cotton warehouse system which will 
make it possible to group for shipment the small New England lots, and eventu¬ 
ally this will bring about direct water delivery to Massachusetts ports with a 
saying not only in the expense and loss now due to the unnecessary trans¬ 
shipment in New York Harbor, but in freight charges as well. 

The saving in time that can be accomplished by shipping by water lines as 
compared with railroads is not properly appreciated, and while it may be 
difficult to express the value of this feature in terms of percentage upon cost 
it is nevertheless deserving of your consideration. 

Lumber—1 tind that apparently very little has been said in detail regarding 
the saving to be made on the shipment of lumber by water, although the esti¬ 
mated receipts at Lawrence, Lowell, and Haverhill are quite large. 

It is safe to assume that if the IMerrimack River were navigable, Lowell, 
Lawrence, and Haverhill would import by water on about the same basis as 
New Bedford and Pall River, whose combined population is a little more than 
two-thirds that of the three cities on the IMerrimack River. 

The report of the Chief Engineer of the War Department for 1914 gives the 
lumber receipts fOr New Bedford as 10,329,514 feet b. m., and 4,997,900 
.shingles, and for Fall River, 14,113,065 feet b. m. and 238,750 shingles. On 'the 
basis of population, the receipts of lumber for Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill 
should be about 32,000,000 feet b. m. and about 8,000,000 shingles. A saving 
of $2 per thousand in freight rate should be made on the lumber and 50 cents 
per thousand on the shingles. These commodities have also the advantage of 
a considerable tonnage of moderate draft vessels, but as they are mostly of 
the sailing type, there would be the long tow up the river to add to the rates se¬ 
cured by New Bedford and Fall River. 

There would also be the consefpiential reduction on rail shipments of lumber, 
which it is not easy to reduce to an expression in dollars per unit of measure, 
but it will surely amount to a large sum of money. 

Something has been said at the various hearings in regard to the probable 
stoppage of navigation on account of the river freezing in the winter, and I 
understand that it was generally agreed that this may cover a period of two 
months a year throughout a period of years. While this is a factor to be con¬ 
sidered by the shipper, it sounds worse than it really is, for the reason that it 
comes at a period when water shipments are more or less uncertain to any 
water point in IMassachusetts. It certainly is no bar to the utilization of water 
routes, as is well shown by the highly successful operation of navigation on the 
Great I^akes and northern canal systems that are open only eight months out of 
the year. 

Conclusions .—I can see no reason for doubting that an adequate develop¬ 
ment of the Merrimack River will create a water-borne commerce compai-able 
with that of New Bedford and Fall River, as the character of the commerce 
of these great manufacturing centers must be very much the same, although 
the present traffic methods are very different. Therefore, on the basis of the 
comparison suggested, tliie commerce of the three cities on the Merrimack River 
should amount to nearly 4,000,000 tons annually, and there can be no doubt 
but what the annual saving upon this business would soon repay the cost of 
the proposed improvements. 

Apparently, Col. Craighill has made the visible saving in freight charges 
the critical test of the commercial success of this project, and has thereupon 
based his estimate of the probable returns entirely upon difference in rail and 
water rates as they now exist, irrespective of the fact that they are arbitrarily 
adjusted by one rate-making power, which is the railroad. 

In my opinion, comparison with well-established water terminal points is the 
most safe basis upon which to base the probable results of an improvement of 
this character. The results actually secured in the harbors of Massachusetts 
that already have adequate facilities for the commerce of to-day is safe and 
sound evidence of what can be done. I maintain that the most important ques¬ 
tion for you to consider in connection with this development is not the differ¬ 
ence in freight rates, but whether or not this project adequately meets the re¬ 
quirements of the commerce that it is expected to serve. 

I am convinced from my study of all the testimony before you in this matter 
and from my own knowledge of the freight conditions in Massachusetts that the 
following estimate of saving in rates on the three principal commodities, viz, 


140 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 
coal, cotton, and lumber, if water transportation is granted these communities 


is conservative: 

1,000,000 tons of coal, at 40 cents_$400, 000 

500,000 bales of cotton, at 25 cents_ 125, 000 

32,000,000 feet b. m. lumber, at $2 per thousand- 04, 000 

8,000,000 shingles, at 50 cents per thousand- 4, 000 


Total_ 593, 000 

I now want to direct your attention to the statistics of the improvements of 
the few harbors that I have referred to, and also of the Connecticut River. 

Providence (population, 1910, 224,326) : 

Expenditures by the Federal Government prior to 1873_ $59, 000. 00 

1882 project, completed in 1895_ 632, 500. 00 

1892 project, completed to 1908_ 483, 200. 00 

1902 project, cost up to 1914_ 684, 779. 00 

Existing projects, estimated to cost_ 1, 571, 600. 00 

To be spent by State and city_ 2, 000, 000. 00 


5, 431, 080. 00 

Total spent by Federal Government to the end of the fiscal 

year 1914_ 2, 559, 010. 48 


Freight traffic for year 1913, 4,539,805 tons, which includes 520,757 tons for 
the Pawtucket River. 

The original depth of the Providence River at its shoalest point was 4.5 feet 
at low water, and the depth that will be secured by the existing projects is 30 
feet at mean low water. 


New Bedford (population, 1910, 96,652) : 

Total spent by Federal Government on all projects to 1914_ $694, 801. 45 

Freight traffic in 1913, 1,491,046 tons, worth_ 46, 360, 645. 43 

Original depth in harbor was 12.5 feet at mean low water. Present depth 
25 feet at mean low water. 

Fall River (population, 1910, 119,295) : 

Total spent by Federal (Government on all projects_ $350, 232. 02 

Freight traffic in 1913 was 1,286,077 tons, worth_ 50, 714, 675. 77 


Present depth 25 feet at mean low water. 

Connecticut River .—Quotations from the report to the Chief of Engineers by 
Maj. G. B. Pillsbiiry, Corps of Engineers, U. S. A. 

Aggregate population, Springfield, Holyoke, Chicopee, and West Springfield 
by the census of 1910 was 181,281. The inward and outward freight of these 
cities and towns for 1912 was 2,977,900 tons. Maj. Pillsbury estimated the 
water traffic per annum would be 600,000 tons of coal and 100,000 tons of gen¬ 
eral freight, making a total of 700,000 tons. He says in his report that if 
suitable draws are provided in existing bridges a steamboat service to New 
York may be expected. The benefit to be derived will be a more prompt delivery 
rather than a reduction in cost of transportation. This advantage is very mate¬ 
rial, as shown by the use of steamboat facilities on the lower river, where the 
rates are the same by rail and by boat. He further says that the rate by water 
on coal to Hartford is given as 60 cents per ton, and he thinks that with an 
adequate channel the charge for the further haul to Springfield and Holyoke, 
including the passage of one or more locks, should not exceed 15 cents per 
ton. This distance is about 30 miles. He estimated that the return on the 
700,000 tons of freight annually would be from $200,000 to $300,000. 

The estimated cost of the project is $1,870,000, without the dam at Enfield, 
which is to be built by private parties at a probable cost of $2,080,000. 

Maj. Pillsbury states under the heading of cooperation: “ I concede it to be 
one of the functions of the present report to suggest and recommend a distribu¬ 
tion of the cost of improvement Which will be equitable in view of the benefits 
conferred.” And further on he says: “ I am constrained to the opinion, there¬ 
fore, that it is but equitable that the General Government bear the entire cost 
of the interstate improvement of the main river channel and that the coopera¬ 
tion of the State and of local interests be directed to the construction of munici¬ 
pally controlled terminals, branch channels thereto and harbor basins, and other 



















MEEKIMACK KIVEE, MASS. AND N. H. 141 


local facilities for navigation, the cost of which, if adequately executed, will be 
in no inconsiderable ratio to the cost of the main channel.” 

William F. Williams, 

Chief Engineer, Harbor and Land Commission, 

State of Massachusetts. 

The Boahd of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. 

Statistics relating to cities and toicns on the Merrimack River in Massachusetts. 


Total population_ 307 , 540 

Total value of assessed estates, April 1,'1913_$262,710, 204 

.Total number of establishments_ 814 

Total capital invested-$188,152, 336 

This represents about 53.1 per cent of the capital invested in 
metropolitan Boston (including Boston and 39 other cities and 
towns) and about 14.4 per cent of that invested in the whole 
State. 

Total value of stock and material used_$116, 870, 360 

This represents about 36.5 per cent of that of metropolitan 
Boston and about 12.6 per cent of that of the whole State. 

Total amount of wages paid during the year_ $42, 004, 459 

Total number of wage earners employed during year_ 85, 069 

Total value of product_$196, 595, 077 


This represents about 36.1 per cent of the total value of prod¬ 
uct of metropolitan Boston and about 12.4 per cent of that of 

the whole State. 

LETTER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE LAWRENCE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 

Lawrence, Mass., May 20, 1916. 

Gentlemen : We of Lawrence, in conjunction with representatives of our 
sister cities of the Merrimack Valley, come to you once more with our petition 
for help to make the Merrimack River navigable from Lowell to the sea. 

When we consider projects in the South and West which have received 
your favorable consideration and on which vast sums of money have been and 
are being spent, we ask ourselves in what manner have we failed in our 
presentation of the merits of this project, that up to the present time we have 
not succeeded in enlisting the assistance of the Federal Government in a project 
with such obvious merit as this presents. 

We have this river, serving a dozen populous and prosperous communities, 
in one of the most thickly settled and wealthy Commonwealths of this United 
States. The banks of this river are lined with industries. The channel of 
this river is always well- supplied with water at every season of the year. 
The ice interference on the river is negligible and could be easily handled. The 
traffic is already developed and awaiting movement. 

The .communities which line this river are, one and all of them, suffering from 
inadequate transportation service by rail carriers. 

The district engineer reports no engineering obstacle, but fails to recognize 
any economic value in the project. 

Such masses of data have already been presented, both at this hearing and at 
previous hearings, and in previous reports and petitions, that it would be use¬ 
less for me to add further to their volume, and I shall confine myself wholly 
to the citation of strictly local conditions known to me personally to exist in 
our own city of Lawrence, viewed strictly from an economic and transportation 
point of view. 

Mr. John A. Bernhard, president of the Alabama and New Orleans Trans¬ 
portation Co., New Orleans, La., and at present engaged in promoting a 
$5,000,000 barge line between St. Paul and New Orleans, is authority for the 
statement that coal can be profitably handled between Norfolk and Boston for 
35 cents a ton, and to Portland for not over 45 cents. 

The Lawrence Gas. Co. now use more than 40,000 tons of coal, on which they 
pay 

80 cents freight Philadelphia to Boston, 608 miles. 

85 cents freight Boston to LawTence, 26 miles. 

18 cents handling in Boston. 

3 cents weighing in Boston. 


$ 1 . 86 











142 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


With a navigable IMerriinaclv there might be an additional 5-cent water 
freight to Lawrence, but the rail-haul charge of 85 cents would be wiped out, 
thereby effecting a saving of 80 cents and doing away with the expense of 21 
cents handling in Boston. 

With coal brought to Lawrence in boats and the resultant saving, steps would 
surely be taken to establish pockets and unloading facilities on the banks of 
the river. 

A careful canvass has been made of the larger firms, which discloses a much 
larger coal tonnage than shown by the Boston & Maine official reports for 
1914, which formed the basis of Mr. S. P. Sherman’s figures of last year. 

Following is a statement of coal useTl in 1915 by 22 of our larger industries: 


Tons. 


American Woolen Co_ 170, 000 

Pacific Mills_ 125,000 

Everett Mills_ 70, 000 

Arlington Mills ‘_ 75, 000 

Pemberton Co_ 8, 000 

Plymouth Mills_ 5, 000 

Brightwood Mfg. Co_ 5,000 

Tyer Rubber Co_ 3, 000 

Smith & Dove Mfg. Co_ 5, 000 

Champion-International Co_ 10, 000 

Merrimac Paper Co_ 2, 000 

IMunroe Felt & Paper Co_ 2, 000 


Tons. 

Walworth Brothers_ 3, 000 

E. Frank Lewis_ 3, 000 

Archibald Wheel Co_ 1,000 

Emerson Mfg. Co_ 200 

Wright Mfg. Co_ 500' 

Mills Machine Co_ 200 

J. H. Horne & Sons Co_ 300 

M. T. Stevens & Sons Co_ 2, 000 

United States Worsted Co_ 5, 000 

Lawrence Gas Co_ 40, 000 


535, 200 


Even at 80 cents a ton saving, leaving the 21 cents a ton to take care of the 
handling in Lawrence, this would mean a saving of $420,000 on coal alone. This 
is an extremely conservative estimate, and takes no account of the tremendous 
tonnage of cotton, wool, lumber, pig iron, pulp wood, cement and lime, sand, 
granite, brick, oil, etc., which could be profitably handled by boat, if the river 
were made navigable. 

When one takes cognizance of the fact that the tonnage for 1916 has been 
nearly, if not quite, double that of 1915, the figures and consequent saving 
become enormous. 

But one factor is overlooked, which contributes very largely to the cost of 
the present system of rail transportation, viz, the car demurrage paid the rail¬ 
roads on outstanding cars of coal. During the past winter thousands of dollars 
were paid to the Boston & Maine Railroad in Lawrence alone on coal which was 
frozen in the cars and difficult to handle. This money was thrown away, as it 
did not fully compensate the carriers for the delay to the cars and the conse¬ 
quent slowing up of business all along their line, which involved much extra 
switching and expense, besides the regular 45 per diem charge on foreign equip¬ 
ment. 

The estimates in Mr. Sherman’s report last year before the Committee on 
Rivers and Harbors, of $1.60 saving per ton on cotton, $1.60 saving per ton on 
wool, $0.95 saving per ton on lumber are made up of averages of rates from 
several different points and are extremely conservative. 

There is an actual difference of 15 cents per hundredweight, or $3 a ton, on 
cotton from New Orleans to Boston, and we now pay an additional 8 cents, or 
$1.60 a ton, freight from Boston to Lawrence; 98,000 tons of cotton and wool 
were brought to Lawrence in 1914 by rail. If coal tonnage increased 30 per cent, 
it is fair to presume that cotton and wool shipments increased in proportion. 
This would mean about 135,000 tons of cotton and wool, which at $1.60 a ton, 
would mean a saving of $216,000, and which, added to the saving of $420,000 on 
coal, would mean a saving of $636,000 during the past year on three commodities- 
alone. 

There now moves between Lawrence and New York City 153,127,240 pounds— 
76,563 tons—of less than carload high-class freight annually, and about one-third 
that tonnage to Boston. 

If this river is opened up, the whole surrounding territory is bound to con¬ 
tribute to the tonnage of the boat lines. 

During the past winter New England has been suffering from an almost utter 
paralysis of its rail carriers. Never before has such a condition been known. 
With a navigable Merrimack River, this condition would have been impossible 
at Lowell, Lawrence, and Haverhill, as the coal and raw material which was- 
blocking the yards would have been handled by water. At no time during the- 
past winter has the river been closed by ice. 
























MEREIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


143 


The normal number of cars in the Lawrence yard is 500 to 700. At times this 
winter there were 1,700 loaded cars awaiting delivery, of which as high as 800 
have been coal in open cars, frozen hard. 

Onr desire is not to cripple the railroads by taking away their business. We 
are quite sure that, if they could be relieved of the necessity of handling coal 
even to our section of New England, they would then be in a position to 
devote their equipment, both rolling stock and motive power, to the handling 
of high-class traflic, which is now made to wait for the enormous coal tonnage 
which must be moved to keep the industries running. 

When we consider the wear and tear on equipment, rent of foreign cars, huge 
increases in pay rolls, discontent of help on overtime work, and demands of 
employees for more wages; extra switching necessary on account of blockades, 
for which no charge can be made; claims arising from delays to perishable or 
seasonable goods that can not be handled promptly, all on account of the rail¬ 
roads’ obligation to give preference to coal for industries—we can not agree 
with those who claim that the development of river navigation will injure the 
rail carriers. 

We can not do business without the railroads—neither can we long continue 
to do business with the rail carriers in their present condition and with their 
present terminal facilities. There is very little possibility for enlargement of 
these facilities in such closely-built industrial communities as ours. 

Water transportation will solve the problem for us. 

We have the river at our doors. 

There is always an abundance of water. 

There is never serious interference from ice. 

There are no engineering obstacles .to be overcome. 

We have the traffic already developed and ready to move. 

The saving to us would amply cover the interest on any outlay necessary for 
deepening the river. 

The city and the State have both committed themselves to the support of the 
project. 

Your consent and your assistance is all that we need to make this project a 
reality. 

It is your cooperation and favorable consideration which we are now invoking. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Geo. E. Rix, 

Secretary and Traffic Manager. 

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. 


Special Report of the Merrtmac Valley Waterway Board. 

[State Document No. 2169.] 

The Co^^imonwealth of Massachusetts, 

January, 1914. 

To the honorable the Senate and House of Representatives of the Conimon- 

irealth of Massachusetts: 

The Merrimac Valley Waterway Board, appointed under the provisions of 
chapter 708 of the Acts of 1912, respectfully submits its second and final report 
concerning an investigation of the Merrimac River, in accordance with the pro¬ 
visions of that act, and of chapter 59 of the Resolves of 1913, extending the 
time for filing said report to the second Wednesday of January, 1914, and the 
term of office of the board to February 1, 1914. 

Chapter 708 of the Acts of 1912 is as follows: 

“ Section 1. Upon the passage of this act the governor, with the advice and 
consent of the council, shall appoint a board to consist of three citizens of 
the CommoiHvealth, one of whom shall be a member of the board of harbor 
and land commissioners. The governor shall designate the chairman of the 
board, which shall be known as the Merrimac Valley Waterway Board. The 
board shall receive such compensation as the governor and council may deter¬ 
mine. The term of oflice of said board shall expire upon the making of the 
report hereinafter provided for. 

“ Sec. 2. It shall be the duty of said board to make a thorough survey and 
study of the possibilities of development of navigation and power in and along 
the Merrimac River, and, in so doing, to employ competent engineers and assist¬ 
ants and by personal inspection and by discussion with the people in the various 
cities and towns along the Merrimac Valley to ascertain the facts and to learn 



144 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 

the desires of the people along said river. The board shall hold meetings in 
the various cities and towns in said vallej" in regard to tlie development of tlie 
Merrimac River for navigation and power, shall make a thorough and compre¬ 
hensive plan for such development, and shall make a report to the general 
court on or before the first day of February, nineteen hundred and thirteen, 
and accompanied by said plan and by such recommendations for legislation 
as the board may determine. 

“ Sec. 3. To meet the expense of said investigation and report, the sum of 
ten thousand dollars may be paid out of the treasury of the Commonwealth. 

“ Sec. 4. This act shall take effect upon its passage.” [Approved June 4, 
1912.] 

This act comprehends— 

Survey and study of possibilities of development of navigation in and along 
the river. 

Survey and study of possibilities of development of power in and along the 
river. 

I’ersonal inspection and discussion with people in the various cities and towns 
along the Merrimac Valley to ascertain facts and learn the desires of the people 
along the river. 

Public hearings. 

Plans for development of river for navigation and power. 

A preliminary report dated January 28, 1913, was made to the legislature, 
printed in House Document No. 1824 of 1913, and considered by the legislative 
committee on harbors and public lands. Up to that time the board, which held 
its first meeting August 23, 1912, had given public hearings at Newburyport, 
Haverhill, Lawrence, Lowell, and Amesbury; made inspections of the river 
from Lowell to the sea; conferred with the district engineer officer in charge 
of river and harbor works in the territory including this river; ascertained, 
both by personal interviews and by correspondence, facts and general informa¬ 
tion concerning the desires of the public, the developed water power, the char¬ 
acter and amount of business carried on in the several cities and towns along 
the river, and collected statistical matter in as complete form as possible. 
Furthermore, for the purpose of studying present river conditions, including 
depths of water, obstructions to navigation, number and location of bridges, 
and other data, a map of the whole length of the river in Massachusetts was 
prepared from surveys and maps by the Federal Government and by the State 
of Massachusetts, and from other sources. A survey had also been commenced 
of the territory at and near the dam at Lawrence, which is described later in 
this report. 

It was stated in the preliminary report that the term of office of this board 
should be extended for the purpose of making further surveys and examinations 
and continuing work then in progress, “ In order that there may be no delay 
on the part of the State and the various municipalities in carrying out such 
work, supplementary to that of the Government, as will provide the facilities 
necessary to carry on the large amount of business which will surely follow 
the opening to navigation of the whole river.” 

A very important consideration in connection with this investigation was the 
fact that the river and harbor act of Congress, approved July 25, 1912, pro¬ 
vided for a preliminary examination of the Merrimac River, “ with a view to 
securing increased depth from Lowell to the sea or in any part of this section 
of the river.” When entering upon its studies of the problem involved, the 
board found that inquiry covering substantially the same matters included in 
the legislation of 1912 aforesaid, as well as others in addition, was contem¬ 
plated by the LTnited States engineer officer stationed at Boston, in compliance 
with his instructions. Consequently, conferences were held, and a plan of co¬ 
operative procedure discussed and adopted for the purpose of avoiding dupli¬ 
cation of work and procuring all possible information and data to enable that 
officer, as well as this board, to prepare full and comprehensive reports. In 
pursuance thereof copies of the stenographic reports of public hearings held by 
this board, and of statistical and other information collected were furnished 
the district officer, and have been used and quoted at length in his report. 
The board has also been greatly aided in its work by the receipt of facts and 
figures in the possession of that officer. 

Early in March, 1913, this board directed its engineer to make an exami¬ 
nation and survey of that part of the river from Ward Hill to the pool above 
the Lawrence Dam— 

(1) For the purpose of preparing plans and estimates of the cost of an 
adequate channel. 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


145 


(2) For the inirpose of prepiiring plans and estimates of cost for building 
a canal, with suitable locks, on the upland along and near the south bank of the 
river, connecting the pool above the Lawrence Dam with the channel of the 
river, just below Ward Hill. Statement, in detail, relating to this and other 
surveys, is made on subsequent pages of this report. 

Up to April 1, 1913, there were nine regular meetings of the board, in 
addition to the public hearings and conferences previously mentioned, at 
which many matters relating to the subjects under investigation were con¬ 
sidered. Later in this month application was made to the Chief of En¬ 
gineers. U. S. Army, for a copy of the report of Col. Frederic V. Abbot, 
Corps of Engineei‘s, U. S. Army, dated March 29, 1913, on his preliminary ex¬ 
amination of this river, required by the river and harbor act aforesaid, and the 
same was subsequently furnished. This clear, logical, and comprehensive re¬ 
port is so instructive and describes so completely existing conditions, that all 
portions thereof which are material to this inquiry are incorporated in and 
made part of the report of this board. The first extract therefrom, and which 
is of primary importance to the Commonwealth, is as follows: 

“ —Whether the creation of a channel IS feet deep and ^0 feet wide, 

suitably widelied at the bends, which will safely permit 17-foot draft vessels to 
navigate the river, is practicable, is largely a matter of cost. If the material 
can be removed by powerful dredges, without drilling and blasting, the cost 
may or may not be excessive, depending on the yardage, which can be ascer¬ 
tained only by an accurate hydrographic survey from the bar to the point 
opposite Ward Hill, where it has been recommended that the United States 
turn over the river to the State for improvement. If large quantities of rock 
are found by boring it may be necessary to combine dredging and slack-water 
navigation below Ward Hill; accurate and numerous borings are therefore un¬ 
avoidable before any definite project or any ai)proximation to the cost of such 
a channel is possible. While there are reliable maps of portions of the river, 
there are long reaches for which no reliable data are available. It is intended 
to avoid duplicating work by using such known data as are available, and 
supplementing them by new surveys. 

“ The question of cost must be determined within reasonable limits before it 
is known to what extent cooperation by the State slu^dd be asked; it seems, 
tlierefore, that the United States should make an accurate survey of the 
river up to Ward Hill, i)rovided the State will undertake a similar survey for 
a canal from Ward Hill to connect with the ])ool above the Lawrence Dam. 
It is understood that there is a considerable State appropriation now available 
for such a survey, and there is little doubt that the balance would be pro¬ 
vided by the Commonwealth of IMassachusetts if such provision was made a 
condition pi-ecedent to a survey up to Ward Hill by the United States, By 
following this course cooperation by the State and Federal Government would 
begin at the very start, and there would be good ground for confidence that the 
local authorities were thoroughly in earnest, and that the improvement was 
worthy of being made by the State and the United States jointly. 

“ It is therefore recommended that an allotment for a United States survey 
of the Merrimac River from Black Rocks Beacon up to Ward Hill, with a 
view to the creation of a channel 200 feet wide and 18 feet deep at mean low 
water, suitably widened at the bends, be made; its expenditure to be condi¬ 
tional upon the provision by the State of sufficient funds for the making, by 
competent State authority, of an accurate survey for a canal to afford 18 feet 
depth and 200 feet width, suitably widened at the bends, connecting the pool 
above the Lawrence Dam with the channel of the Merrimac River just below 
Ward Hill. Under no conditions should the United States undertake to make 
a survey above Ward Hill, even if the State offers to defray the cost; for the 
legal questions as to State and P'ederal relationships to water powers on that 
part of the river are so involved that the whole matter of the extension above 
Ward Hill, survey as well as construction, operation, and maintenance of the 
canal, should be strictly the State’s contribution to the improvement of the 
river.” 

The views and recommendations of Col. Abbot having been concurred in by 
the higher authorities, he was authorized to undertake— 

“ a survey of the Merrimac River from the mouth to Ward Hill, to be made 
under the condition that the State shall make an accurate survey and prepare a 
project, with estimate of cost, for a channel having a depth of 18 feet and suit¬ 
able width from Ward Hill to Lowell.” 

H. Doc. 1813, 64-2-10 



146 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 

It was further provided, and stated in a letter from Col. Al)bot to this board, 
dated May 28, 1913, that— 

“ the survey to he made by this office is to include studies for a channel over 
the bar at the entrance to the river of suitable depth to accommodate a draft of 
17 feet at mean low water. The survey will he undertaken as soon as the 
proper State authorities have given assurance satisfactory to the Secretary of 
War that the State will make an accurate survey and prepare the project and 
estimated cost of the IS-foot channel for a suitable width from Ward Hill to 
Lowell.” 

This letter was considered at a meeting held May 29, 1913, and it was “ voted, 
that this hoard, acting under authority conferred upon it by the Legislature of 
Massachusetts and contained in chapter 708 of the Acts of 1912 and chapter 59 
of the Resolves of 1913, make an accurate survey of the IMerrimac River from 
Ward Hill to Lowell, and that a project be prepared, with estimate of cost, for 
a channel having a depth of 18 feet and suitable width from Ward Hill to 
Lowell,” in compliance with the conditions contained in said letter. 

This survey and estimate, as well as a project for improvement, have been 
made and prepared under tlie direction of this board, and are described later 
in this report. 

:is * * ♦ 

INVESTIGATIONS, SUKVEYS, AND EXAMINATIONS MADE BY THE COMMONWExVETH OF 

MASSACHUSETTS. 

The provisions of chapter 96 of the Revised Laws relating to tidewaters, and 
defining the powers and duties of the Massachusetts board of harbor and land 
commissioners, are applicable to that part of the IMerrimac River where the 
tide ehhs and flows, and that board has exercised its jurisdiction over the same 
for years, with respect to encroachments, the huilding of bridges, wharves, and 
other structures, and otherwise. The Commonwealth has not made any ex¬ 
penditures under the direction of that board for dredging or otherwise improv¬ 
ing the navigation of this river, but in 1902 ordered an investigation to be made 
by the board of harbor and land commissioners and a report submitted to the 
legislature on the possibility and advisability of opening this river to naviga¬ 
tion from Lowell to the sea. This report was printed in the annual report of 
that board for 1902, and set forth in general terms the examinations, surveys, 
and projects made by the Federal Government up to that time, the situation at 
Lawrence and Lowell, including the canals and locks and other matters. In 
speaking of the method of improving navigation between Haverhill and Law¬ 
rence, the opinion was expressed that the best way would be the “ construction 
of a dam and lock at IMitchells Lower Falls, the removal of bowlders and the 
dredging in shoal spots of the river between the upper falls and the lower lock 
in the canal at Lawrence, and the raising of bridges or the substituting of 
drawbridges over the canal from the lower locks to the dam of the Essex Co. 
at Lawrence. * * * It is assumed that a dam at Mitchells Lower Falls 4 

feet high, with a lock of about the same size as the lower lock of the canal at 
Lawence, would he sufficient. That would allow navigation of the river from 
Haverhill to the lower locks at Lawrence for barges drawing about 4 feet of 
water.” 

” There are three locks in the lower canal at Lawrence, 100 feet long 
and 20 feet wide, but over the sill of the lower lock there is only about 
2.5 feet of vaiter at ordinary low water in the river. After passing the lower 
locks into the canal there are 14 bridges over the canal, connecting the city 
l)roper with the mill yards. Five of the bridges are railroad, two are highway, 
and seven owned by the Essex Co. and several mills, for the mill oper¬ 
atives, teaming, and general use. The distance from the lower locks to the dam 
is about 1 mile. Fnder these bridges thei’e is very little headroom—in some 
instances not over 2 feet. It would be impracticable for barges or lighters to 
use the canal without raising the bridges or constructing draws therein. 

“ The fall of the river at I^awrence from the dam to the lower locks is about 
28 feet.” 

In describing the I'iver above the Lawrence Dam, the board say: 

” From the dam at Lawrence to Hunts Falls, below Ijowell, at the junction of 
the IMerrimac and Concord Rivers, about 9 miles, navigation is practicable 
after dredging away the shoals and bovrlders near its upper end. 

“At Hunts Falls thore are two sections, the upper and lower falls. From 
the basin above the falls, near the first lock on the Lowell Canal to the basin 
below, is about 5,700 feet, and in that length of river there was a fall of about 


MERETMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


147 


11 feet in 1881. This lias been reduced by the Looks & Canal Co so 
that now the upper basin above the falls is only 7 or 8 feet biifher than the 
basin below the falls. 

“ The fall in the river in the 9 miles from Lawrence Dam to Hunts Falls 
is onl^ about 1 foot, and the channel is from ii to 30 feet in depth, excepting 
one rocky shoal and some bowlders which could easily be removed. At Hunts 
Falls the current is very rapid, and the river bed is rocky and irregular, and 
only 2 or 3 feet in depth for some distance. 

“At Hunts Falls, in the opinion of the board, it would be necessary to con¬ 
struct a dam and lock to aid navigation. It would not he practicable to cut 
away the falls sufficiently to allow barges to be drawn through a channel, be¬ 
cause this would decrease the depth of water in the river above to less than 
the required navigable depth. 

“ There are three locks in the c.anal between the Concord Kiver and the pond 
above the Lowell Dam. The length of the locks, respectively, is about 100 feet; 
the width of the lock gates is only 12 feet, and the locks would he available 
for craft drawing only 3 feet of water. 

“ This canal from the lower locks at the Concord Kiver junction to the dam 
above passes directly through the city. The fall from the dam to the lower 
lock is about 32 feet. Across this canal also are five highway bridges, three 
railroad bridges, and two mill bridges. Just above the lower locks is an old 
highway bridge, and the headroom between the average surface of the water 
in the canal and the truss of the bridge is only 18 inches. This is a much- 
traveled street in the city, fully occupied on both sides with mills, warehouses, 
or stores. It would be very expensive to raise the bridge, on which buildings 
have been erected on either side of the traveled way, or to make a draw therein.” 

The concluding portions of this report are: 

“ The canals at Lawrence and Lowell are now very little used for the passage 
of boats. IMany years ago rafts of logs and spars or masts were carried 
through the locks. There was also some other freight carried through the 
canals. Careful records of both canals have been kept of the passage of barges, 
rowboats, launches, and canoes. The locks have been used for that purpose 
only a few times each for the last 25 years. No freight has passed through the 
canals for many years. 

“ The locks of the Lawrence Canal have been little used for the last 25 
years. * * * The cost of the dam and lock at Mitchells Falls and at Hunts 

Falls, respectively, and the dredging of shoals and bowlders at several places 
in the river between Haverhill and Lowell would be the smallest of the items of 
cost. A very large expense would be the raising of the bridges to make more 
headroom, or ])roviding the same with suitable draws; but larger than all 
would be the damages caused by the loss of power to the many mills on the 
banks of the two canals, and no approximate estimate of the cost can be given. 

“ The dam at Michells Falls would decrease the flow and fall of water at the 
lower locks and mill raceways in the canal at Lawrence. This would probably 
not cause so large damage and loss of power as the dam and lock at Hunts 
Falls in Lowell. The building of a dam there would reduce the water power 
available for all the mills on the several canals in Lowell about 4 feet. 

“ The cost of the work, including the building of two dams and locks, dredg¬ 
ing shoals, removing bowlders, damages to water power and cost of street and 
bridge changes in Lawrence and Lowell, could only be accurately determined 
after a long and expensive investigation by engineers and experts. 

“ When completed, as above suggested, without substantially enlarging the 
locks (except at the lower lock in Lawrence), the river would be navigable to 
and through Lawrence by barges 20 feet wide, 100 feet long and drawing 4 feet 
of water; and to and through Lowell by barges 12 feet wide, 100 feet long and 
drawing 3 feet of water. Barges or craft of that size would not be safe for 
tra*'sporting freight even from Boston harbor. All freight for Lawrence or 
Lowell would require rehandling at Newburyport or Haverhill. 

“ The amount of freight tonnage for the cities of Lawrence and Lowell should 
be considered in this connection. For the year ending June 30, 1902, all the 
freight carried into the two cities by the Boston & Maine Kailroad was as 
follows: 


Carried into Lawrence; 

Tons of coal_ 

Tons of all other freight 
Carried into Lowell: 

Tons of coal- 

Tons of all other freight 


246, 031 
450, 917 

295, 697 
520,145 






148 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


“ Coal would be more likely to seek water transportation than other freight. 
The mills for the most part have spur tracks to their boiler rooms. The neces¬ 
sary rehandling of coal in the lower river and the carting from canal to boiler 
room would have to be added to the water-borne freights in offsetting the greater 
all-rail coal rates; and the difference in cost of transportation would prob¬ 
ably be small. The outgoing freight from the two cities would largely be by 
rail. 

“ The work of opening the Merrimac River from Lowell to the sea would 
be feasible and practicable from the engineering point of view; but, considering 
the large cost and the damages involved, and the relatively small savings on 
freight which must be rehandled on the lower river and transported in such 
small barges, the board reports that, in its opinion, it is not advisable for the 
State to undertake the large expense of opening the river to navigation from 
Lowell to the sea. 

“ The United States engineers have for years made surveys and reports on 
this work, and the United States has expended large sums to improve the navi¬ 
gation of the Merrimac River. Apart from the large expense, it may be better 
to leave the work in sole charge of the United States.” 

Notwithstanding this adverse report, municipalities, boards of trade, and 
other organizations, Representatives in Congress, as well as public-spirited citi¬ 
zens in the Merrimac Valley, have kept alive the movement for an improved 
waterway, bringing about in 1912 the legislation under which this board is 
acting and cooperating with it, as well as independently, in collecting facts and 
<lata required by it and the engineer othcer engaged in a preliminary examina¬ 
tion of the river under authority of the river and harbor act of Congress. 


BRIDGES, DAMS, LOCKS, AND CAXALS ON MERRIMAC RIVER. 

Present condition.—The river between Newburyport and Haverhill is crossed 
by eight bridges, six of which form a part of highways and two are Boston & 
INTaine Railroad bridges. The clear height at mean low water varies from 19.5 
feet, the lowest, to 41.5 feet, the highest. There are draws in six, varying from 
38 feet, the smallest, to 76 feet, the largest, for the passage of water craft. The 
two upper bridges, namely, the Boston & Maine bridge at Haverhill, and the 
highway bridge at Haverhill, known as county bridge, have no draws therein, 
the clear height at mean low water being 41 ..5 feet at the railroad bridge and 
32.5 feet at the highway bridge. 

Between the county bridge at Haveidiill and the Lawrence Dam there are 
the following bridges: Union Street, Boston & Lowell Railroad bridge, Boston 
& Maine Railroad bridge, Broadway Bridge. 

Between the Lawrence Dam and Hunts Falls there are no bridges across the 
river. 

BETWEEN HUNTS FALLS AND THE PAWTUCKET DAM AT LOWELL. 


Name of bridge across 
Merrimac River. 

Type of bridge. 

L^sed for what purpose. 

Approxi¬ 
mate grade 
imder side 
of truss 
above locks 
and canals 
datum. 

Elevation of water 
(feet). 

Ordinary 

height. 

In ex¬ 
treme 
freshet 
(Mar. 3, 
1896). 

Central ville. 

Steel truss. 

Highway and street cars. 
Highway. 

67.7 

73.3 

82.6 

97.1 

45.0 

46.0 

5.5.0 

65.0 

63.2 

65.0 

81.4 

.90.7 

Aiken Street. 

.do. 

Moody Street. 

Deck steel truss... 
Steel ti’uss. 

Highway and street cars. 
.do. 

School Street or Paw¬ 
tucket. 



BETWEEN THE PAWTUCKET DAM AT LOWELL AND THE STATE LINE. 

Vesper Country Club.... 
Tyngsborough. 

Suspension. 

Private foot bridge. 

108.5 

104.8 

187.0 

187.0 

100.7 

102.8 

Steel truss. 

Hierhwav. 





’ 'lop of flasbboarcls. 














































MEREIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


149 


The construction of a central bridge, with suitable approaches, over this 
river, at a point between the present Broadway Bridge and Union Street Bridge, 
has been authorized and provided tor by the legislature in chapter 513 of the 
Acts of 1906, chapter 486 of the Acts of 1907, and chapter 640 of the Acts^of 
1913, and it is understood that plans are now being prepared under the direc¬ 
tion of a special bridge coininission. 

In order to make use of an improved river channel, as indicated in this 
report and shown on the accompanying maps and plans, any plan adopted by 
this bridge commission should provide for a structure with a draw therein 
having an opening of not less than 50 feet in width. 

By license granted by the board of harbor and land commissioners July 24, 
1912, the county commissioners of Essex County were authorized to extend 
the center pier of the bridge between Haverhill and West Newbury, known as 
Itocks Bridge, by building a timber crib at the northerly end of said pier and 
to jacket with wood the westerly stone pier of said bridge, to carry out certain 
requirements of the War Department. 

By chapter 613 of the Acts of 1913 the county commissioners of Essex 
County were authorized to reconstruct that i)art of this bridge which lies east 
of the draw. Plans of the proposed work were approved by the board of har¬ 
bor and land commissioners September 3, 1913, it being provided in the license 
granted that the foundations of the pier nearest the channel and draw be at 
such depth as to allow future deepening of the river channel to 18 feet at 
mean low water without impairing the stability and safety of the bridge. 

By chapter 826 of the .Acts of 1913 the county commissioners of Essex 
County were authorized to repair or reconstruct that part of the bridge be¬ 
tween Haverhill and Groveland, known as Groveland Bridge, which lies east 
of the draw. Plans of the proposed work were approved by the board of 
harbor and land commissioners September 3, 1913. 

No changes in the draw ways of these bridges were required by these licenses. 

DAMS AND WATER POWER.^ 

The tirst step toward the construction of any hydraulic works on the JMerri- 
mac River was taken June 27, 1792, on which date a corporation, known as- 
the Proprietors of the Locks and Canals on Merrimac River was chartered 
for the purpose of improving the navigation of the river and rendering it navi¬ 
gable by boats from tidewater to the New Hampshire line. 

The dam at Lawrence, built of stone and near the foot of what were known 
as Bodwells Falls, the tirst structure of that kind reached in passing up the 
Merrimac River from Haverhill, was completed in 1848, and is owned by the 
Essex Co., incorporated in 1845. 

This dam creates a pool and deadens the current as far as the foot of Hunts 
Falls, and gives a pond area of about 29,000,000 square feet. 

There is a canal on each side of the river; the one on the north side being 
about 5,330 feet long, 100 feet wide at the upper end, and 60 feet at the lower 
end. At the head of this canal there is a lock and at the foot three locks 
descending into the river. 

The south canal was built in 1866, and carried for a distance of 2,000 feet,, 
with a rectangular section 60 feet wide and 10 feet deep. 

The dam at Lowell, known as the Pawtucket Dam, is the next structure of 
that character existing above the Lawrence Dam at Lawrence. The canal 
known as the Pawtucket Canal was built before 1800, having been opened in 

^^In 1822 the Merrimac Manufacturing Co. was incorporated and this corn- 
pan v in that year enlarged the Pawtucket Canal. 

It appears that in 1821 there was a wing dam at the head of the falls, to¬ 
gether with a saw and grist mill. This dam extended to what is known as 
Great Rock, and its top was several feet belo^y the top of the present dam. 
In 1825 there was a temporary dam across the river, and in 1826 the Merrimac 
Manufacturing Co. appeared to have made a beginning on a new dam, but in 
that year this company transferred its real estate to the Proprietors of the 
Locks and Canals, which completed the dam in 1830 to 2 feet below its present 
height. It was raised 2 feet in 1833 by putting on two courses of granite stone. 


1 In part from water power of United States ; census of 1880. 







150 


MEREIMACK ElVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 

In 1847 that part of the dam between Great Kock and the gatehoii.se was 
relinilt in its present position, to conform to tlie enti’ance to the northern canal, 
which was built during tliat and the previous year (1846). 

4n 1869 the directors considered the propriety of rebuilding the remainder 
of the dam from Great Kock to tlie north side of the river, but it was not de¬ 
cided to commence the work until February, 1875, A new dam was built on 
nearly the same site as the old one. This dam deadens the current in the ordi¬ 
nary state of the river for about 18 miles, forming, in low' w'ater, a reservoir 
of about 1,120 acres. The dam is situated at the head of what are knowm as 
PawTucket Falls, and for a distance of about one-half mile below' the gatehouse 
the bed of the stream is solid rock, and tlie banks high and rocky. 

Tvvo canals lead the w'ater from above the dam, the original Paw'tucket 
Canal, enlarged in 1822 and 1823, and the northern canal, both on the south 
side of the river. Various other canals intersect these tw'o. 

The fall at Low'ell, at ordinary low w'ater, is about 40 feet, of w’hich about 
3 feet is lost in consequence of the descent in the canals, leaving a net fall 
of about 37 feet. 

The Lowell mill pond extends to the foot of Cromw'ells Falls, 44 miles above 
Nashua and 17f miles above Paw'tucket Dam. From this point up to IManchester, 
N. H., a distance of about 13 miles, the river rises about 33 feet. 

The water pow'er derived from the river at Low'ell is controlled and operated 
for 10 dilferent manufacturing corporations by the Proprietors of the Locks and 
Camils on iMerrimac Kiver. The turbine w'ater w'heels now' established are 
capable of drawing from the pond above the dam through the canals 9,211 
cubic feet per second and developing 29,911 horsepow'er. Additional or larger 
wdieels are occasionally put in. All pow'er developed here is used in manufac¬ 
turing upon adjacent mill sites. 

At Law'rence the w'ater of the river is controlled and operated and furnished 
to the several manufacturing corporations by the Essex Co. The turbine w'heels 
HOW' established are capable of draw'ing from the pond above the dam through 
the canals 9,906 cubic feet per second and developing 25,251 net horsepow'er. 

A record of the craft passing through the Essex Co.’s north canal during the 
years 1908-1912, inclusive, is as follows: ^ 


Year. 

Launches 

passed. 

Row¬ 

boats. 

Canoes. 

Sail¬ 

boats, 

People. 

Craft 
carried 
by L. 
locks. 

Dories. 

Craft, 

Up. 

Down. 

Total. 

1908. 

8 


8 

1 

29 

8 


5 

12 

17 

1909. 

22 

1 

9 

1 

55 

9 

1 

16 

18 

34 

1910. 

16 


7 


48 

8 

2 

10 

15 

25 

1911. 

15 


9 


61 

9 

1 

7 

18 

25 

1912. 

17 

2 

13 


79 

15 

1 

16 

17 

33 


SUKVEYS, MAPS, AND PLANS BY THE MEKKIMAC VALLEY W'ATERW'AY BOARD AND 

PROJECT FOR DEVELOPMENT, 

For the purpose of ascertaining the feasibility, merits, and probable cost of 
a canal on the south side of Merrimac River from a point on the river bank 
just l)elow' Ward Hill to the pool above the Lawrence Dam surveys w'ere made 
by IMr. George W. Wood, of Malden, Mass., civil engineer, w'ho w'as engaged to 
make surveys, examinations, and estimates of cost in connection w'ith this 
inquiry. This survey covered two locations for the canal, one entirely on the 
south side of the Boston & Maine Railroad, connecting wdth the river just below 
M'ard Hill cut; the other beginning at the same river point, below' IVard Hill, 
and follow'ing the Ward Hill railroad cut, the south bank of the IMerrimac 
River, crossing the Boston & IMaine Railroad near the mouth of the Shaw'sheen 
River, thence to the same point above the Law'rence Dam. 

The valuation of the property w'hich it w'ould be necessary to purchase or take 
on both of these locations was obtained, mnd the physical difficulties and other 
matters connected w'ith the construction of such a canal as w'ould serve the 
purpose of allow'ing the passage of vessels from the low'er river to a point above 
this dam were carefully considered. 

The conclusion reached by the board was that, owing to the land damages, 
which W'ould amount to a large sum, the cost of necessary bridges at various 


1 Furnished by the Essex Co. 











































MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


151 


streets iu North Andover and South Lawrence, the relaying of sewers, water 
mains, and car tracks, the large amount of water which would be required in 
the canal, and particularly as such a canal would not, in the judgment of this 
board, best serve the business interests of Lawrence, a channel dredged in the 
river and canals constructed across Ward Hill and at the Lawrence Dam would 
he a better solution of the problem. 

The project developed on these lines is described later and shown on the maps 
and plans annexed to this report. 

Access to and use of surveys and maps of sections of the river made by the 
Essex Co. and the Proprietors of Locks and Canals were courteously allowed. 

The length of river between the Lawrence Dam and the upper limit of this 
purvey at Hunts Falls is about 8.8 miles, and between the Lawrence Dam and 
the lower limit about 6.5 miles. 

The stretch of river from the upper limit of the board's survey to the bound¬ 
ary line between Massachusetts and New Hampshire is about 11+ miles, and 
the hoard’s inquiry with respect thereto has necessarily been confined to an 
inspection and the collection of such data as will be valuable for future use in 
preparing a project for improvement of navigation as far as the State line, 
which, if carried into effect, would not only benefit those communities along 
the river hanks in Massachusetts, hut, if extended, would be of the greatest ad¬ 
vantage to the cities of Nashua, Manchester, and other points on the river front 
in New Hampshire. 

Immediately after this hoard’s acceptance of the condition previously referred 
to, that the State should make a survey of the Merrimac River and prepare 
a project, with estimate of cost for a channel having a depth of 18 feet and 
suitable width from Ward Hill to Lowell, the engineer was instructed to sup¬ 
plement the surveys already made by him by one between the points indicated 
above; to direct and supervise the work of making borings necessary to deter¬ 
mine the character of material which would probably he encountered in carrying 
out any project involving excavation and dredging, either wholly in the river 
or partly in the river and partly across a portion of the adjoining shore within 
this stretch of river; to prepare a map showing thereon the shore lines, topo¬ 
graphical features, soundings, and other details, also the location and width 
of the proposed river channel; and to prepare and submit a report and estimate 
of cost of the necessary dredging and excavation to provide a channel 200 feet 
wide and 18 feet deep from Ward Hill to Lowell. 

Sul)sequently, Edward O. Sherman, civil engineer, of Boston, Mass., was em¬ 
ployed to act as consulting engineer, and advise the board on important engi¬ 
neering questions involved in this investigation, including a study of the exist¬ 
ing conditions at the Lawrence dam, the building of locks, canals, and dams, 
the rebuilding of existing structures, and to submit a report, with plans, esti¬ 
mates, and suggestions, as to the necessary works, their probable effect, if any, 
upon the valuable water-power privileges at Lawrence and Lowell, the creation 
of additional water power in the river, together with any other matters perti¬ 
nent to this investigation. 

The project which the Merrimac Valley Waterway Board has prepared, based 
on the surveys and examinations made by its engineers, and shown on the 
accompanying plans, provides for a navigable channel 18 feet deep by dredging 
in the Merrimac River, and by excavating and building a canal and locks at 
Ward Hill and a canal and locks at the Lawrence Dam, which would permit the 
passage of vessels of 17 feet draft, which might proceed from the open sea up 
river in a channel 18 feet deep to a point opposite Ward Hill, below the Law¬ 
rence Dam, thence to Hunts Falls at Lowell. 

The total length of the improved waterway would be about 15.3 miles, of 
which about 34,175 feet, or about 6.5 miles, would he below the Lawrence Dam, 
and about 46,540 feet, or about 8.8 miles, above that dam. 

The width as well as the depth of the river channel would be the same, 
namely, 200 feet and 18 feet, respectively, as that recommended for an improved 
channel from the sea to a point opposite Ward Hill, and as described in the 
preliminary report of Col. Frederic Y. Abbot previously quoted from. 

The location of the canal to be constructed at Ward Hill is shown on the 
accompanying plans, and would extend from the river channel to be dredged up 
to Mitchells Falls, through the adjoining upland southerly of the river, a dis¬ 
tance of about 4,255 feet, connecting again with the river at a point just above 
Kimballs Island. The width of this proposed canal would be 100 feet and the 
depth 18 feet. The dimensions of the proposed lock at the entrance to the canal 
down stream would be as follows : Usable lengfh, 350 feet; width, 45 feet; depth 


152 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. II. 


at gate sill, 18 feet. It is also proposed to provide an additional small lock for 
the use of small boats, leading from the westerly side of tlie turning basin in 
the Ward Hill Canal to the river, for convenience and saving time. 

The proposed canal and lock at the Lawrence Dam would he located on the 
north side of the river, as shown on the accompanying plans, extending from a 
point below the dam to the pool above. The dimensions of this lock would he 
the same as the one proposed at the Ward Hill Canal. As practically the entire 
normal flow of the river at Lawrence is used for power purposes, it is necessary 
to conserve for that purpose as much of the water as possible, using only so 
much as may be absolutely recpiired for lockage. It is lU’oposed to divide the 
usable length of lock, 350 feet, into two chambers of about 110 feet and 240 
feet, respectively, by means of intermediate gates, so that for any vessel a lock 
chamber of suitable length can be provided. 

It is proposed to provide, in addition to the lock at Lawrence above described, 
a flight of two small locks, each about 50 feet long, 10 feet wide, and 5 feet 
deep at low water, to be built adjacent to the large lock, for use by motor boats 
and other small craft, thus conserving the water supply and avoiding use of 
even the 110-foot chamber of the large lock. 

The board has carefully considered the subject of constructing a dam across 
the river at a point about 1,700 feet below the lower end of Kimballs Island, 
where the stream is about 400 feet wide, which would hold back the water and 
create a pool at a level which would not interfere with the flow from the water 
wheels at Lawrence, thus reducing to a minimum the amount of excavation 
necessary for the channel. 

The consulting engineer, in speaking of this proposed dam, says: 

“ The water can not be permitted to back up to a higher elevation at Lawrence 
than it does now. At the same time, a reasonably tight dam with its crest at 
about elevation 4.5 should be available during times of low flow * * 

Owing to the very considerable rise of the river in time of flood, and to the 
presence of ice floes in the spring, the most satisfactory dam would be one of 
those which fold down on the bottom of the stream * * *. It is probable 

that a dam of the bear-trap type would best serve the purpose * * *. The 

proposed dam would consist of four bear-traps, each about 90 feet long, set be¬ 
tween permanent masonry end abutments and three river piers. The piers 
would also provide supports for a combination highway and service bridge 
* * *. No design has been made for this dam * * * fi-om sketches 

it has been roughly estimated to cost about $310,000.” 

The necessary changes at the Lawrence r>am and work other than that 
already described above would be substantially as follows: 

The total length of this dam, which is now on its crest 897 feet, wonld, after 
its proposed extension of about 175 feet at its south end, be i*educed to about 
875 feet by the construction of the proposed k)cks. 

Above and near the Lawrence Dam the excavation of a iiew entrance to the 
north power canal and some changes at the south power canal would be 
necessary. 

It is proposed to excavate a channelway in the rock near and below the 
Lawrence Dam to compensafe in part for the restrictions of the river flow, and 
to further improve conditions by removing the present Broadway Bridge and 
building a new double-deck structure on the site of the present Boston & IMaine 
Railroad bridge, to serve for both highway and railroad. 

It would be advantageous to have but one drawbridge over the lock at Law¬ 
rence, and by means of this new combination bridge the existing grade crossing 
and attendant dangerous conditions could be eliminated. 

Other bridge changes would be of minor importance, comparatively, and 
would include the rebuilding of a portion of the present bridge, known as the 
Boston & Maine Railroad bridge, with a draw therein; also the rebuilding of 
Union Street Bridge with a draw, the passageway for water craft through each 
bridge to be not less than 50 feet wide. 

The studies made by the consulting engineer have included one concerning a 
power plant which might be installed to develop power necessary for operating 
the locks at Ward Hill and Lawrence, to light the canals and the navigable 
river channels. It would be possible to pump back, over the Lawrence Dam, 
an amount of water equal to that used in lockages to fully compensate the 
owners of the power rights, although further investigation and consideration 
of this subject may show that such a project would be inadvisable. 


MEREIMACK ElVEE, MASS. AND N. H. 


153 


The engineers’ reports, with estimates in detail, are printed in the appendix 
to the hoard’s report, and, with the maps and plans which have been prepared, 
are referred to as showing existing conditions and the projected improvements. 

CONCLUSIONS AND EECOMMENDATIONS. 

The recommendations and other matters contained in the report of Col. 
Frederic V. Abbot, which has been largely quoted in the report of this board and 
which pi’ovide for certain cooperation betvreen the Federal Government, the 
State, and the municipalities, are as follows*: 

(1) Ncwl)ury 2 )ort as ui)per limit of improrament for 17 feet draft. —Assuming 
that a survey does not develop excessive rock areas, it would seem that this 
work would be so comparatively inexpensive that it can be reported as being 
worthy of being done by the United States, on condition that the State or mu¬ 
nicipality expend an equal sum in deepening the water between the channel 
and the wharves and in providing a suitable public terminal open to all water 
carriers on equal terms and connected with the railroad for interchange of 
water-borne and railroad-borne traffic. 

(2) HaverhiU as upper limit of improvemerit for 17 feet draft. —No 17-foot 
dredged channel can probably be provided to Haverhill for less than $1,600,000. 

* * * This plainly indicates that State or municipal cooperation must be a 

condition iirecedent to any work by the United States. * * * 

It would, then, seem not unreasonable to assume that if the State would guar¬ 
antee maintenance of 17 feet draft to Haverhill at mean low water and would 
contribute half the cost of original improvement the United States might be 
justified in putting not to exceed $800,000 into a 17-foot-draft channel to Haver¬ 
hill if a survey should indicate that such a channel could be provided for 
$1,600,000. * * * 

The above is sufficient to show that without a full and complete survey and 
borings in the bed of the river from the mouth up no fair report on the worthi¬ 
ness or unworthiness of a channel permitting vessels drawing 17 feet to reach 
Haverhill can be made. 

(3) Lawrence as upper limit of improvement for 17 feet draft. —The cost of 

carrying 17 feet navigation above Haverhill into the Lawrence Fool can not well 
be less, and is almost certainly greater, than the cost to Haverhill, the head of 
tidal navigation, if a 17-foot open channel be dredged to that point. It would 
seem that if 17 feet is to be given above Haverhill it should be done by the 
State, which now, under State charters, has full control of the water-power 
situation. Such a cooperation on the part of the State or municipalities would 
be equivalent in effect to contributing at least half the cost of making Lowell 
and Lawrence seaports and would probably justify the United States in doing 
the work up to Haverhill, or perhaps to 1 mile above Haverhill, where the State 
canal south of Ward Hill would enter the river. * * * 

With a pledge from the State to complete a 17-foot-draft canal from the Mer- 
rimac River 1 mile al)ove Haverhill into the Pool above the Lawrence Dam and 
to operate the same free of tolls forever, it would then seem that the project of 
giving 17 feet draft to Haverhill at the cost of the United States might be a 
worthy one to be undertaken by the United States if a survey does not show too 
great cost. * * * 

The possibilities seem so great that I report without hesitation that the river 
is worthy of the cost of such a survey up to Ward Hill, about a mile above Haver¬ 
hill. Above that point the surveys should be at State expense, as they are to do 
the work if the above recommendations are adopted by Congress. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE MERRIMAC VALLEY WATERWAY 

BOARD. 

A summary of the statistical information collected by this board shows the 
following facts concerning the cities and towns along the Merrimac River in 
Massachusetts: 


Total population_ 307,540 

Total value of assessed estates, Apr. 1, 1913-$262, 710, 204 

Total number of establishments- 814 

Total capital invested_$188,152, 336 


This represents about 53.1 per cent of the capital invested 
in metropolitan Boston (including Boston and 39 other cities 
and towns), and about 14.4 per cent of that invested in the 
whole State. 






154 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


Total value of stock and material used___$116, 870, 860 

Idiis represents about 36.5 per cent of that of metropolitan 
Boston, and about 12.6 per cent of that of the whole State. 

Total amount of wages paid during the''year_ $42, 004, 459 

Total number of wage earners employed during year_ 85, 069 

Total value of product___$196, 595, 077 

This represents about 86.1 per cent of the total value of prod¬ 
uct of metropolitan Boston, and about 12.4 per cert of that of 
the whole State. 


The total ocal consumption of these cities and towns exceeds 1.200,000 tons, 
only about 435,000 tons of which is now received by water. In the opinion of 
the manufacturers along the river an adequate water route for the receipt of 
this commodity would effect a saving in freight rates of from 50 cents to $1 
a ton in addition to the saving in transportation charges on general merchan¬ 
dise, raw material, and manufactured product. 

The estimated total co.st of carrying out the 
mac Valley Waterway Board for improving the 
Falls at Lowell is $5,443,600, which is exclusive 
of the cost of removal of Broadway Bridge at 


project i)repared by the INIerri- 
river from Ward Hill to Hunts 
of land damages at Ward Hill; 
Lawrence and the construction 


the Merrimac 
shown would 

river between 
including the 


of a new bridge at that point; and of the cost of making certain changes in 
existing bridges between Ward Hill and Broadway Bridge. This total cost 
would be reduced about $226,800 if the width of the proi)osed channel from 
the Lawrence Dam to Hunts Falls was reduced from 200 feet to 100 feet. 
Assuming the estimated cost of carrying out the Federal Government project 
of improvement from the sea to Haverhill to be approximately $1,600,(K)0, as 
stated in the report of Col. Abbot, the total cost of improving 
Biver from the sea to Lowell in the manner and to the extent 
be approximately $7,043,600. 

The large expenditure necessary for improving the stretch of 
Ward Hill and the Lawrence Dam is due to several factors, 
character of the material which would be encountered in the excavation, largely 
rock and ledge; a canal and locks at Ward Hill; a dam in the vicinity of Kim¬ 
balls Island designed to form a pool above the same, and thus minimize the 
amount of expensive excavation and dredging required to obtain 18 feet of 
water without, however, injuriously affecting the existing valuable water¬ 
power privileges at Lawrence; and a canal and locks for passing the Lawrence 
Dam, necessitating a curtailment of its present length, and its future extension 
to the south as a compensatory provision. 

Above the Lawrence Dam the survey does not disclose conditions which 
would call for the payment of a large amount per cubic yard for dredging to 
obtain a depth of 18 feet, but as the section of river to be improved is about 
8.8 miles in length the estimate of cost for a channel 200 feet wide amounts to 
approximately $567,000, and for a channel 100 feet wide approximately $340,200. 

As the results of the Government survey now in progress, and the report and 
estimate of cost by the United States Engineers based thereon, will not be a 
matter of public knowledge for some months the board in the following pages 
has set forth a suggested line of procedure which in its opinion should be 
carried out to show the Commonwealth’s interest and willingness to aid in the 
projected improvement of this river. 

The conclusions which have been reached by the INIerrimac Valley Waterway 
Board, and the recommendations which it makes—after full consideration of 
all phases of the questions involved in the investigations intrusted to it, and 
having in mind the large amount of business carried on. as well as the large 
saving in cost of transportation and the resultant benefit generally to this 
section of the Commonwealth as shown by the statistics and data herein set 
forth, are: 

should be improved and opened to navigation 
deep at mean low water extending from the 
above Haverhill, and by providing a depth of 
and by building canals and locks from Ward 


(ff ) That the Merrimac River 
by providing a channel 18 feet 
sea to Ward Hill, about 1 mile 
18 feet by means of a channel 
Hill to Hunts Falls at Lowell. 

(&) That the Federal Government carry into effect a project providing for 
a channel 18 feet deep at mean low water, from the sea to Ward Hill, about 1 
mile above Haverhill, and that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts cooperate 
with the Federal Government in carrying such project into effect, the basis, 
form, and method of cooperation to be agreed upon after all facts and data have 
been obtained. 






MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


155 


(c) That the Commonwealth of Massachusetts adopt and carry into effect the 
project prepared hy the Merrimac Valley Waterway Board for tlie improvement 
of the Merrimac River from Ward Hill, about 1 mile above Haverhill, to Hants 
Falls, at I.owell, snhstantially as outlined in this report, namely, by excavating 
a channel of adequate width and 18 feet deep in the river, and by building 
locks and canals to provide a depth of 18 feet, and that the Federal Govern¬ 
ment cooperate with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in carrying such 
project into effect; and that the basis, form, and method of cooperation in re¬ 
spect to the State’s project be agreed upon at the same time as agreed upon in 
respect to the Federal Government’s project for improvement of the river as 
far as Ward Hill. 

(d) That work under projects for improvement of the Merrimac River from 
the sea to Hunts Falls at Lowell he carried on progressively, upstream and in 
such manner and at such times as will insure the earliest possible completion 
of the projected channel as-far as Lowell. 

(e) That the board of harbor and land commissioners be given charge and 
jurisdiction over that part of the Merrimac River which is not tidal, substan¬ 
tially to the same extent as that board’s powers and duties now apply to tide¬ 
waters ; that said board be authorized to continue the investigation thus far 
made hy the IMerrimac Valley Waterway Board, particularly with reference to 
that part of the river from Hunts Falls to the State line, and the location of 
terminals, and to act in conjunction with the cities and towns in the Merri¬ 
mac Valley in the furtherance of such plans and projects for improving this 
river as it may deem worthy, and to have charge of and supervise all works of 
improvement. 

(/) That the legislature memorialize Congress to take early and favorable 
action looking to the improvement of the Merrimac River and its opening to 
navigation from the sea to Lowell, and urging that appropriations be made to 
carry out the necessary work in cooperation with the Commonwealth of Massa¬ 
chusetts. 

(g) That an appropriation of $1,000,000 be made by the legislature for the 
purpose of improving the Merrimac River, and as evidence of agreement by the 
Commonwealth to a policy of cooperation with the Federal Government with 
respect thereto, the expenditure of this appropriation to he conditioned upon 
the passage by Congress of appropriations for the same purpose. 

The foregoing report is respectfully submitted. 

Chakles C. Paine, Chairman, 

Andrew B. Sutherland, 

Lewis R. Hovey, 

Merrimac Vallcg Watericag Board. 

Appendix. 

REPORT OF GEORGE W. WOOD, ENGINEER. 

Gentlemen : I respectfully submit the following report on survey of the 
Merrimac River from Mitchells Lower Falls at Ward Hill to Hunts Falls, 
about 1 mile below Lowell, made for the purpose of obtaining the necessary 
data for determining the most desirable route for a navigable channel along 
that portion of the river, and an estimate of the cost of same. 

In compliance with your instructions, I conferred with Col. Frederic V. 
Abbot, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, at his office, for the purpose of ascer¬ 
taining his views, as he had been ordered by the department at Washington 
to make a report on matters concerning the Merrimac River. 

I was informed that in order to make a comprehensive report he desired 
to consider the merits of a canal leading from the pool above the Lawrence 
Dam, overland, along the south side of the river and entering the river again 
just below Ward Hill, but that he lacked the necessary data, and no funds 
were available for making a survey. I was instructed by you to furnish 
the information desired, and accordingly a survey was made and plans covering 
this section were delivered to Col. Abbot. 

A study of this scheme was made for your information. 

One line was considered lying entirely on the south side of the Boston & 
Maine Railroad, entering the river just below the Ward Hill “ cut ”; another 
starting from the same point above the dam and crossing the Boston & Maine 
Railroad near the mouth of the Shawsheen River, thence following along the 
right bank of the Merrimac River to the Ward Hill railroad cut, occupying 


156 


MERKIMACK EIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 

the cut and entering? the river just below; this line would necessitate the 
relocation of tracks in the cut. 

A valuation of the property to be taken along both routes has been obtained 
and a study of the physical difficulties has been made. 

On account of the large cost of land damages, the cost of building bridges 
at the various streets in South Lawrence and North Andover, relaying of 
sewers, water mains, electric car and steam car tracks, and on account of the 
large amount of water which would be required to operate the canal, and 
especially as such a route would not best serve the business interests of Law¬ 
rence, for which navigation of the INIerrimac River was desired, it was thought 
best to abandon the overland lu'oject and confine all efforts to a study and an 
investigation of deepening the river bed from the Lawrence Dam to AVard Hill; 
thence by a canal across Ward Hill to the river below. 

Through the kindness of the Essex Co. a large expense was saved by allow¬ 
ing free access to all their data pertaining to the. matter, and accordingly as¬ 
sistants were employed in making tracings of their surveys and plans, and 
collecting all other information relative to the work in hand. 

It was also necessary to do considerable field work in extending surveys 
outside of the data furnished by the Essex Co., and a thorough development of 
conditions at Ward Hill and the river below was made, also for several miles 
at and below Hunts Falls. 

Col. Abbot in his report, dated March 29, 1913, recommended that a chan¬ 
nel be created 200 feet wide and 18 feet deep, suitably widened at the bends. 
After careful consideration by your board, it was decided that these dimen¬ 
sions would meet all requirements, and plans and estimates have been made 
accordingly, i. e., for a channel 200 feet wide and 18 feet deep from Hunts 
Falls to Ward Hill, and for a canal 100 feet wide across AVard Hill. 

AJjove Latvrence Dam .—The elevation at the crest of the dam is 34.12 feet 
above the Essex Co.’s reference i)lan, but during a large portion of the year 
flashboards raise the height of the pool to approximately 39 feet. On investi¬ 
gation it was found that the elevation of the water was seldom below eleva¬ 
tion 36, consequently this elevation was considered to be a safe one on which 
to base an estimate for an 18-foot channel. 

The distance from the dam to the upper end of a proposed turning basin at 
Hunts Falls is approximately 46,-540 feet, or 8.8 miles; for nearly 3 miles of 
this distance very little dredging will have to be done, the deepest cutting 
being at the upper end of the channel just below the falls, where more or less 
bowlders will be encountered and several areas of hard clay and gravel. Bor¬ 
ings taken over the entire distance at intervals averaging 400 to 500 feet apart, 
or sufticiently close to show any change in the material, did not indicate that 
ledge rock would be encountered above an elevation of +18, but that a large 
portion of the material coidd be easily handled, so that a unit cost of 35 
cents per cubic yard for the total excavation would be a reasonable price. 
It is estimated that 1,620,000 cubic yards of material will have to be removed, 
including turning basin at Hunts Falls, making the total cost $567,000. 

Below Lawrence Dam .—The distance from the lower end of the proposed 
lock at the dam to the entrance of the canal at AVard Hill is approximately 
29,920 feet, or 5.7 miles. 

Borings were taken over this stretch from 400 to 500 feet apart where the 
material continued to be of about the same character, but where any change 
was found they were made at more frequent intervals. At the upper end 
many bowlders were encountered, but the surrounding material was of such 
character that it would not be difficult to remove them. Farther down the 
river ledge rock was found at several places. 

In order to be able to permanently maintain a depth of 18 feet of water 
in the channel, it was found that it would be necessary to place an obstruction, 
such as a movable dam, in the river at some point below the entrance of the 
proposed canal. 

The dam could only be built to such a height as would not back up slack 
water at the lower locks to an elevation that would interfere with the power; 
this elevation was assumed to be +3.7; consequently, this fixed the depth 
to which the excavation must be carried in order to obtain an 18-foot channel, 
or, in other words, to elevation —14.3. In addition to this, 1 foot has been 
allowed in the estimate for overdepth dredging. 

This makes the total estimate of material from the lower end of the lock 
at the Lawrence Dam to the entrance of the canal at AA^ard Hill to be 3 311000 
cubic yards, of which 40,000 cubic yards is estimated to b^ ledge excavation 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


157 


The^ borings indicated that a large proportion of the material would not 
be difficult to excavate, and that the cost would not exceed 45 cents per cubic 
yard. 

3,271,000 cubic yards of earth, at 45 cents 
40,000 cubic yards of rock, at $7_ 


Making the total cost of this portion of the work_ 1, 751, 950 

Ward Hill Canal .—It is proposed to leave the bed of the river near the head 
•of Kimballs Island and follow the depression across Ward Hill Point, entering 
the river again about 50 feet below the mouth of a brook. The center line 
of the proposed canal was laid out on the ground, and the necessary levels 
taken to determine the amount of excavation. On a plan submitted showing 
this route, there is a broken line indicating a slight change in direction, which 
will slightly decrease the amount of material to be removed. 

The difference in elevation of the water surface at the upper end of the 
eanal and that of the river at the entrance will necessitate the construction 
of a lock. Assuming the elevation of the water surface to be +3.7, as tixed 
by the dam in the river below Kimballs Island, and the elevation of mean 
low water at the entrance of the canal, where it is affected by the tide, to 
be —4.8, the difference is 8.5 feet; but as only a few observations were made 
this difference may vary a foot or more; probably the difference is about 9 
feet. In order to accurately determine mean low water at this point, a long 
series of observations should be made. 

It is assumed that a canal 100 feet wide would meet all requirements, and 
the estimate has been made on that basis. The distance across Ward Hill 
from river to river is 4,255 feet. 

Borings, 27 in number, have been made along and near the center line, at 
such intervals as would give a fairly good indication of the material. Ledge 
rock was found much nearer the surface than was anticipated, and nearly every 
boring struck rock at an elevation considerably above the bottom of the canal 
(—14.3). The average cut is approximately 28.5 feet, for a distance of 
3,585 feet. 

It is estimated that there are 384,000 cubic yards of rock excavation from 
the entrance at Kimballs Island to the lock, including 0.5 foot for overdepth, 
and the cost of removing the same would be $1.20 per yard, making a total 
of $400,800; but on account of the large quantity, small risk of damage to 
property from blasting, and easy disposal of material this cost might be 
considerably reduced. 

The amount of earth excavation covering the same distance and width, with 
side slopes of 2 or 1. not allowing for berms, is estimated to be 225,000 cubic yards. 
The larger part of this material, being of a sandy nature, could be handled 
easily, and it is estimated that the cost would be 25 cents per cubic yard, 
making a total of $56,250, or a grand total for canal of $517,050. 

It wall be necessary to do more or less paving where the ledge does not 
extend above the water surface to protect the slopes from the wash of passing 
boats, but this cost would probably not exceed $2,000. 

No estimate is given of excavation chargeable to the cost of locks and dam, 
as it has been included in the report of the consulting engineer, nor for that 
below the entrance of the lock at Ward Hill, as it is assumed that the United 
States Government will provide a channel to that point. 

On account of insufficient data it is not possible at the present time to make 
a reliable estimate of the cost of maintaining a depth of 18 feet in the channel. 

Summary. 

Distance from turning basin at Hunts Falls to Lawrence 


P)am_miles_ 8. 8 

Distance from dam to entrance of canal-do- 5. 7 

Distance across Ward Hill Canal, river to river-mile.._ .8 


Total distance covered by work- 

Total number borings in river channel- 

Total linear feet (successful borings) in river 

Total number borings across Ward Hill- 

Total linear feet across Ward Hill- 

Total linear feet of borings- 


miles_ 15. 3 

_ 151 

_ 1,338 

_ 27 

_ 315 

_ 1,653 


$1, 471, 950 
280, 000 


















158 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 


Excavation: 

Above Lawrence Dam— 

Channel and turning basin, 1,620,000 cubic yards, at 35 


cents_^- $567, 000 

Below Lawrence Dam— 

To entrance canal, earth, 3,271,000 cubic yjirds, 

at 45 cents_$1. 471, 950 

To entrance canal, rock, 40,000 cubic yards, at $7_ 280, 000 

- 1, 751, 950 

Canal to lock. rock. 384,000 cubic yai’ds, at $1.20_ 460. 800 

Canal to lock, earth, 225,000 cubic yards, at 25 cents_ 56, 250 

- 517,050 

Paving slopes_ 2, 000 


2, 838, 000 

Engineering and contingencies, at 20 per cent_ 567, 600 


Total_ 3,405,600 


Very respectfully. 

Geo. W. Wood, Enf/incer. 

December 1, 1913. 

REPORT OF EDWARD C. SHERMAN, CONSULTING ENGINEER. 

Gentlemen ; In accordance with your instructions I have made designs for 
the structures which would be required by a project to create a navigable chan¬ 
nel in the Merrimac River from Lowell to tidewater near Ward Hill, and I 
have the honor to submit the following report on their purposes and probable 
costs: 

General description. 

The project for which the structures described herein are designed is based 
on the assumption that the Merrimac River is to be made navigable from the 
sea to a point opposite Ward Hill by providing a channel 18 feet deep at mean 
low water, under such plan of development as may be adopted by Congress and 
carried out by the War Department, and that the Commonwealth of Massa¬ 
chusetts is to prepare a project for a channel 18 feet deep from the point oppo¬ 
site Ward Hill to Lowell. 

The proposed project would involve the construction of channels, locks, and 
dams as follows: 

A channel would be dredged in the river from a point near Lowell to the dam 
at Lawrence to give a depth of 18 feet below the low-water level of the pool 
formed by the dam. At Lawrence a lock would be provided so that vessels 
could be passed by the dam into another channel not less than 18 feet deep, 
which would follow the river to a point just above Kimballs Island, where it 
would enter the pro])()sed Ward Hill (kinal, a direct cut-off around Mitchells 
Falls, to the channel, which, it is assumed, the L^nited States will provide in 
the tidal section of the river. 

Just below Kimballs Island a dam would be constructed to hold back the 
water and form a pool at the highest level possible witbout interfering with the 
flow from the water wheels at Lawrence, so as to reduce to a minimum the 
amount of excavation necessary for the channel. 

The surface of this pool would always be several feet higher than the water 
surface in the river below Mitchells Falls. Consequently a lock would be pro¬ 
vided at the north end of the Ward Hill Canal by whicb ves.sels would pass 
from one level to the other. 


Dimensions of locks. 

As you have determined on 18 feet as the depth of the proposed navigable 
channel, the dimensions which I have adopted for the locks are fixed by the 
lengths and widths of such vessels as can navigate in a channel of that depth. 

A careful study has been made of lists giving the dimensions of all vessels 
navigating the Atlantic coast, and it appears that, while the great majority of 
those which may be expected to use the river are from 140 to 190 feet long, 
and seldom more than 36 feet wide, there are nevertheless a very considerable 











MEERIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


159 


and increasing number of coasting vessels of from 15 feet to 17.5 feet draft 
which are about 250 feet long and up to about 43 feet wide. 

In designing the locks additional allowance must be made for a towboat, since 
only a part of those vessels could navigate a comparatively narrow and crooked 
channel under their own power. The proper lock dimensions' have consequently 
been determined to be as follows: 

Feet. 

Usable length_350 

Width _ 45 

Depth at gate sill_ 18 

Lock and changes in dam and in bridges at Lawrence. 

Lock .—The entire difference between the water levels at Lawrence can best 
be overcome by one lock having a lift of about 35 feet at normal stages of the 
river. It would be located along the northerly bank of the river, as shown on 
sheet No. 1 of the plans accompanying this report. 

The lock gates* would be of the mitering, girder type, built of steel and hav¬ 
ing oak quoin and meeting posts. The upper gates would be 27 feet high and 
the intermediate and lower gates about 59 feet high. It is proposed to operate 
them by the method which has been adopted on the Panama Canal—that is, by 
means of a strut, one end of which is attached to the gate, the other to the 
rim of a “ bull wheel ” contained in a chamber in the lock wall and driven by 
an electric motor. 

The filling culverts, one in each side wall, would run the entire length of the 
lock, filling and emptying the lock chamber being accomplished through ports 
near the lock floor. The flow in the culverts would be controlled by sluice¬ 
gates at the ends. 

In order to avoid the danger of the lower lock-gates being rammed by a 
vessel, a heavy steel buffer beam is proposed. The presence of such a beam 
would require a vessel to stop some distance away from the gates, and if it 
were not stopped it is improbable that after destroying the buffer it would re¬ 
tain enough momentum to cause serious damage to the gates. 

At the upper end of the lock the drawbridge will provide sufficient protec¬ 
tion to the gates and the buffer beam can be omitted. ^ ^ 

The possibility exists that, in spite of all precautions,* an accident may 
happen by which one pair of gates would be destroyed while the others were 
open, iiermitting an unobstructed flow of water through the lock from the 
upper to the lower level. It is therefore proposed to make the drawbridge 
serve as an “ emergency dam,” the lower chords forming a horizontal truss 
which could support the upper ends of steel girders, which, lowered into the 
lock, would provide supports for wickets by which the flow could be checked 
without emptying the pool above the dam. 

Practically the entire normal flow of the river is used for i)ower purposes 
at Lawrence, so that no more water should be taken for lockages than becomes 
absolutely necessary. Consequently, although the total usable length of the 
lock would be 350 feet, it is proposed to divide that length into two chambers 
about 110 feet and 240 feet long by means of intermediate gates, so that, for 
any vessel, a lock chamber of suitable length may be provided and unnecessary 
waste of water avoided. 

It is probable that a large part of the traffic will be vessels in tow, and that 
the towboats, after delivering them at their quays, will return downstream 
alone. A very considerable saving in water will result from the use of the 
110-foot chamber by such craft. 

Locks for small boats .—In addition to the commercial traffic, it is expected 
that a very large number of power boats and other small craft will use the 
improved river. As it is not desirable that even the 110-foot chamber of the 
large lock be used for such boats on account of the need of conserving the 
water supply, it is proposed to provide a flight of two small locks adjacent to 
the large onk These locks would be about 50 feet long, 10 feet wide, and 5 feet 
deep at low water. 

Water levels at Lawrence .—The difference in the levels of the pools above 
and below the Lawrence Dam will vary somewhat with the stage of the river 
and the storage conditions. The stone crest of the dam is at elevation 34.12, 
but the water is ordinarily held several feet higher by means of dashboards. 
The pool seldom, if ever, falls below elevation 36.0, nor has it ever been higher 





160 


MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. U. 

than elevation 44.0. The ordinary water level may be assumed to be at about 
elevation 39.0. 

With these data the upper approach wall and the lock walls are fixed at 
elevation 45.0, so that they may never be overtopped by the water, and the 
upper sill is fixed at 18 feet below elevation 36.0, at elevation 18.0. 

The proper elevation for the lower sill of the Lawrence lock is a problem 
which can be accurately determined only by more complete study than is justi¬ 
fied by the purposes of this report. 

It is not permissible that the pool level be higher than elevation 5.48 at 
Lawrence when the river discharge is less than about 4,000 cubic feet per 
second on account of interference with the existing power interests. Assuming 
that with that discharge the slope of the water surface to Ward Hill, which is 
now about 9 inches to the mile, will be about 9 inches in the whole distance 
after the channel is improved by dredging, the water surface at the lower end 
of the pool would be at about elevation 4.7. 

If the discharge of 4,000 cubic feet per second were constant, a fixed masonry 
dam could perhaps be built at Kimballs Island to create a pool at this elevation, 
but as the water must not be backed up at Lawrence for any given discharge 
to a height greater than obtains at present, it is assumed that a movable dam, 
affording complete regulation of the flow, will be used. 

It appears that Mdien the mills at Lawrence shut down on Saturday after¬ 
noon and are closed over Sunday and sometimes over Monday when a holiday 
happens to come on that day, the whole, discharge of the stream is frequently 
stored at the Lawrence Dam, and the flow in the river channel is almost noth¬ 
ing. The leakage past the movable dam during such a period would be con¬ 
siderable and wo\dd result in a lowering of the pool level by an amount which, 
until the, dam is designed, is indeterminate. 

Believing that the lowering might amount to about a foot before a new Supply 
would begin to refill the pool, it has been assumed for the purposes of the de¬ 
signs that low water would be at elevation 3.7. Accordingly, the lower sill and 
the, bottom of the lock are placed at elevation —14.3 to give the desired depth 
of 18 feet. 

Changes at Lawrence Dam .—The Lawrence Dam has a length on its crest of 
897 feet. Although it is proposed to extend it about 175 feet at the south end, 
the total length would be reduced to about 875 feet by the construction of the 
locks. As this reduction in length would cause a great freshet, equal to that of 
1896, to back up to an additional height of only about 3 inches, it is not con¬ 
sidered impracticable. 

The changes required above the dam would be slight and would consist in 
excavating a new entrance to the north power canal and in such changes at the 
south power canal as the extensions of the dam render necessary. 

The waterway below the dam is at present much obstructed by bridge piers. 
As the lock will further restrict the available area, it is proposed to excavate 
a channel in the rock of sufficient cross section to compensate for this restric¬ 
tion and further to improve the conditions by removing the Broadway Bridge 
entirely, placing the highway on a new, double-deck structure on the site of 
the present Boston & Maine Railroad Bridge, which would serve for both 
highway and railroad. This arrangement offers the great advantage of re¬ 
quiring but one drawbridge over the lock, and incidentally affords an excellent 
opportunity to eliminate the 'dangerous grade crossing which now exists near 
the north end of the bridge. 

The changes which would be required in the other bridges are minor ones 
and consist principally in the introduction of suitable bascule drawbridges. 

Cost .—It is estimated that the cost of the work at Lawrence, exclusive of 
such excavation as is chargeable to ship channels in the river, of the removal 
of the Broadway Bridge, of the proposed new combination bridge, and the 
changes in the other bridges, will be about $921,000. 

The details of this estimate are given in an appendix to this report. 

Locks and power plant at Ward Hill. 

Ship lock .—The proposed Ward Hill Canal has been laid out to take ad¬ 
vantage of the topography of the country through which it passes, and its direc¬ 
tion at the north end is such that vessels must make a turn of nearly 90 degrees 
to enter the river channel. On account of the current in the river, this turn 
can best be made in a basin just above the lock, which, to avoid heavy exca¬ 
vation, is placed near and parallel to the river bank, as shown by the, location 
on sheet No. 3 of the plans accompanying this report. 


:\rEHHIMACK RIVER, MASS. AND N. H. 


IGl 


Tlio details of tbe i)roi)osed lock, ;ilso shown on slu'ct No. 3, do not differ 
materially from those of the Lawrence Lock previously described, excei)t that 
the lift is made to fit the conditions that would be met. The intermediate 
fcates are omitted, since the quantity of water used for lockages would not be 
taken from a supply intended for power, and the time lost in filling a lock 
chamber longer than would always be necessary would be little on account of 
the low lift. 

The upper sill is shown placed at elevation —14.3. wliieh is th.e same as 
the lower sill at Lawrence, and the lower sill and floor of the lock are placed 
at elevation —22.8, which is 18 feet below mean low tide at this i)oint. The 
lift wall w’ould therefore be 8.5 feet high, but the actual lift for vessels will 
vary from that somewhat with the different stages of the river and of the tide. 

^mall-hoat lock .—Although the water supply would permit the use of the 
large lock by small boats, it is advisable to consider the .advantages of a 
separate small lock for such craft on account of the saving in time. Such a 
lock is shown on the plan, leading from the vcesterly side of the turning basin 
to the river. 

Potccr pltDii .—The difference in level between The Ward Hill (Janal and the 
river near the proposed lock will ordinarily vary from about 3.5 feet to about 
10 feev, depending on the stages of the river and the tide. It is probable that an 
average difference of about 7 feet will exist, and it may be found advantageous 
to install a plant to develop the power necessary for the operation of the locks 
at Ward Hill and at Lawrence, to light the canal and the navigable river chan¬ 
nels, and possibly to puini^ back, over the dam at Lawrence, an amount of water 
equal to that used there in lockiiges so as to fully compensate the owners of the 
power rights. 

It is possible that the uncertainty as to the quantity of water that would be 
available for power develo])ment on Sundays and holidays will render the i)ro- 
ject inadvisable. 

Owing to lack of time this matter has not been thoroughly studied, Init the 
possibility of power development should receive consideration in any actual 
improvement. 

Cost .—It is estimated that the cost of the work at Ward Hill, including the 
excavation for the turning basin but exclusive of cost of site, will be aliout 
^807,000. The details of this estimate are given in an ai)iiendix to this report. 

PAM NEAR Kt]MBALLS ISLAND. 

As explained elsewhere in this report, it is important that the dam which 
forms the pool from Lawrence to Ward Hill be constimcted so as to offer little 
obsti’uction to the flood flow of the stream, since, for any given discharge, the 
water can not he permitted to'*back up to a higher elevation at Lawrence than it 
does now. At the same time a reasonably tight dam, with its crest at about 
elevation 4.5, should be available during times of low tlow. 

Th(-re are a number of types of movable dam which have been fouml suc¬ 
cessful in practice. The simplest type consists merely of stop planks put in 
place a.nd removed as required. Sliding gates wei’e evolved from stop planks, 
and these have been developed in various ways. One form, known as Stoney 
gates, lias been built to close openings up to 45 feet wide. 

Owing t<i the very considerable rise of the river in time of flood, and to the 
presence of ice floes in the spring, the most satisfactoi'y dam would be one of 
those which fold down on the bottom of the stream. It must be easily operated,, 
free from conqilicated mechanism, and so strong and simple that ice can not 
damage it, and should be capable of being lowered rapidly without chance of 
failure. 

As the various forms of wicket dams which would .satisfy these conditions 
are not easily made tight, and as the proposed pool would have to be main¬ 
tained on days when the river discharge is practically nothing, it is probable 
that a dam of the bear-trap type would best serve the purpose. 

It is thei-efore tentatively proposed to construct a dam across the river at it 
Iioint about 1,700 feet below the lower end of Kimballs Island. The stream is 
about 400 feet wide at that point, and the proposed dam would consist of four 
bear straps, each about 90 feet long, set between permanent masonry end abut¬ 
ments and three river piers. The piers would also provide supports for a 
combination highway and service bridge. 

No design has been made for this dam as it would require much more time 
than has been available, l)ut from sketches it has been roughly estimated to 
cost about $310,000. 

H. Doc. 1813, 64-2-11 



162 


MERRIMACK RIVER^ MASS. AND N. H. 

Conclusions. 

The design and construction of the dam and locks, and the changes in exist¬ 
ing structures at Lawrence, which would be necessary to the execution of your 
project for making the Merrimac River navigable from Lowell to tidewater 
near Ward Hill, would involve no unusual engineering problems, although 
there are many points which would require careful and thorough investigation. 

It is believed that the results obtained are sufficiently accurate for the pur¬ 
pose of determining the practicability of the project. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Edward C. Sherman, 

Consul tin p Engmeer. 

November 19, 1913. 

Appendix. 

The details of the estimate of cost of the work at Lawrence are tabulated 
below: 

Excavation for canal approaches, 20,000 cubic yards, at $0.40_ $8, 000 

Excavation for extension of dam, 52,500 cubic yards, at $0.75- 39, 400 

Dry excavation in rock below dam for channels, 20,300 cubic yards, 

at $2.50_-_ 50,800 

Removal of part of Lawrence Dam at lock, 1,140 cubic yards, at $1.75_ 2, 000 

Dry excavation in rock for chamber of lock, 23,400 cubic yards, at 

$2.50_ 58, 500 

Approach walls at ends of lock; 

Concrete, 6,400 cubic yards, at $7_ $44, 800 

Riprap (from excavation), 1,480 cubic yards, at $0.65_ 1, 000 

Spruce piles, 46,700 linear feet, at $0.22_ 10, 300 

Yellow-pine pile caps, 44 M feet, at $100_ 4, 400 

Spruce plank, 38 M feet, at $90_ 3, 400 

- 63,900 

Wall at south end of Lawrence Dam, 4,900 cubic yards, at $6.50_ 31, 900 

Cofferdam, south end of Lawrence Dam, 340 linear feet, at $25_ 8, 500 

Round piles, at $0.25 per linear foot. 

Wales, at $125 per M feet. 

Sheet piling, at $70 per M feet. 

Steel rods, at $0.10 per pound. 

Pilling, at $0.60 per cubic yard. 

Removing structures, at $6.67 per linear foot. 


Extension of Lawrence Dam, 2,800 cubic yards, at $7_ 19, 600 

Cofferdam around lock; 

220 linear feet, at $43.50_ $9, 600 

110 linear feet, at $25_ • 2,700 

880 linear feet, at $56_ 49, 200 


- 61,500 

Round piles, at $0.25 per linear foot. 

Wales, submerged, at $120 per M feet. 

Sheeting, at $80 per M feet. 

Steel rods, submerged, at $0.10 per pound. 

Steel rods, at $0.06 per pound. 

Filling, at $0.60 per cubic yard. 

Gravel embankment, at $0.50 per cubic yard. 

Framed lumber, at $90 per M feet. 

Removal, at $10 to $14 per linear foot. 

Lock masonry: 

Concrete— 


1: 2^ : 5, 38,460 cubic yards, at $7.50_$288, 500 

Cyclopean, 1,400 cubic yards, at $5_ 7, 000 

Granolithic surfacing, 2,320 square yards, at $1.08_ 2, 500 

- $298, 000 

Ijock gates—• 

Steel, 700,000 pounds, at $0.055_ 38, 500 

Other materials_ 6, 500 

- 45,000 

Metal set in concrete— 

Cast iron, 260,000 pounds, at $0.04_ 10, 400 

Structural steel, 12,00 pounds, at $0.05_ 600 

Reinforcing rods, 40,000 pounds, at $0.035_ 1, 400 


12, 400 





























MERRIMACK RIVER, MASS. AKD K. H. 163 

Lock masonry—Continnecl. 

Buffer beam, 33,000 pounds, at $0.045 ___j_ $1 500 

Wicket girders and wickets, 130,000 pounds, at $0.05_ 6, 500 

Sluice gates, motors, controllers, installations, at about $50 per 

square foot of opening_ 19 qOO 

Booms - 2 , 000 

Steel booms, floats, at $0.04 per pound. 

Chain, at $0.04 per pound. 

Concrete anchors, at $15 per cubic yard. 

Timber booms, at $0.15 per linear foot. 

Anchors, at $5 each. 

Operating building_ 8, 000 

12 -inch pump, motor, and piping for pumping water back above 

dam-.- 4,000 

Lock-gate operating machines, 6 at $3,200 each, say_ 19,000 

Electrical equipment— 

Wiring- $1,000 

Switchboard_ 1, 000 


Small boat-lock equipment— 

Lock gates_ 4, 000 

Operating machines and motors_ 2, 000 

- 6,000 


767, 500 

Engineering and contingencies, 20 per cent_ 153,500 


Total _ 921,000 

This estimate does not include excavation chargeable to channel in river, 
removal of Broadway bridge, and changes in other bridges. 

The details of the escimate of cost of the turning basin, locks, and power 
plant at Ward Hill are tabulated below*: 

(a) Turning basin: 

Dry-earth excavation, 80,000 cubic yards, at $0.50_$40, 000 

Dry-rock excavation, 91,000 cubic yards, at $1.10_ 100, 000 

(h) Locks: 

Dry-earth excavation, 77,000 cubic yards, at $0.50_ 38, 500 

Wet-earth excavation, 16,000 cubic yards, at $0.75_ 12, 000 

Dry-rock excavation, 23,000 cubic yards, at $1.10_ 25, 000 

Wet-rock excavation, 6,000 cubic yards, at $2.50_ 15, 000 

Cofferdam, 730 linear feet, at $40_ 29, 200 

Concrete masonry, 41,000 cubic yards, at $7.50_ 308, 000 

Granolithic surfacing, 2,000 square yards, at $1_ 2, 000 

Lock gates_ 20, 000 

Lock-gate operating machine_ 12, 800 

Sluice gates and machinery_ 13, 000 

IMetal to be set in concrete— 

Cast iron. 130,000 pounds, at $0.04_ 5, 200 

Steel, 10,000 pounds, at $0.05_ 500 

Buffer beams, 66,000 pounds, at $0.04^_ 3, 000 

Operating building_ 5, 000 

24-inch pump and motor_ 5, 000 

Switchboard and wiring_ 2, 000 

Equipment for small lock_ 4, 000 

(c) Pow*er plant: 

Flume excavation, 6,000 cubic yards, at $0.50_ 3, 000 

Concrete masonry, 2,.500 cubic yards, at $7.50_ 18, 800 

Superstructure_ 5, 000 

Equipment_ 5, 300 


672, 300 

Add 20 per cent for contingencies_ 134, 700 


Total___ 807,000 

o 















































f I 


*i*V' iv. »•' '■■?j'‘' • !''i 

^ txT V^IWfciirT^ ‘' ‘w.tf*.-'Iff 




#’1.• 






» % 




- ■ ■'^!^!hi.-,vS 'jS ^ 

■*r_*^ ' WBl •' 










■> •' . •» - 




<^3f‘p»'W.. • liV »■*.*■ >>• ,' 


r) A 'A.: ■■ -’ V-»>< •* -‘v.: ^ ^ i s*^ 

fl f 


-.vw sai-,., . .;ifc45(?i 


i.<>- 3 




tl ' 


-. ■' ' ■ • ■ ■ . - ^ --J- . 



*t -,'•*' ♦ ‘ ,,. *.,; , 

*•" • - .'.rV'i-H.- .' •.;.l*-.-- ‘f* V' .v;i'.!4 

xi- r*T • A * ^ t 


-Jm ''A: ^ 




«a*.-.. 


^ i'-'f ^36i!tfe&rfl 


i ’■ ■ 




,tQ ym t 

...«- ,,..,™ -•- 


« - . * ^ V •“ ‘ ■ 

.;. - ;.. 

*■ * .J5Jin .'ML .Ai.* '^‘■.- V ' ^' u ■__■ 


f' ""X- 4*7^ 





*» - *■• ».j* .. . 







f 

■ 





>1.-. 









lu A w Rl e iS} e 



NOTES : 


Usable length of lock . . . 350 feet 

Width of lock . . . .45 « 

Depth over gate sill.18 » 

Elevations are referred to the Essex Co. datum 
Details of lock on Sheet No. 2 


PROPOSED LOCATION OF LOCK 

AND 

CHANGES IN DAM AND BRIDGES 

AT LAWRENCE 


O •«« 


too reiT. 


NOVEMBER !9. 1913 


EDWARD C. SHERMAN 
CONSULTING ENGINEER 
6 BEACON ST. .. .BO.STON 




















































19 V 


fe:^j^S^;<3;aS^ 1i i ia u; ^fr^ti*H f»^^ ^y y-;- vv.;y..:V;-::>. I 

- - • '^"f'^’TVMWM'-' ;«*«(»l-M,^l,^,^' , • ■ •■I I 



-^ 

LONGITUDINAL SECTION ON CENTER LINE OF LOCK 



-j— 




SECTION k- 


SECTION B-B 




Cmcavatcd CHAMnC 


SECTION C-C 


SECTION D“D 




SECTION E-E 


SECTION F-F 


NOTE : 


Elevations are referred to the Essex Co. datum. 
For location see Sheet No. I 


COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MERRIMAC • VALLEY • WATERWAY BOARD 

PLAN AND SECTIONS 

or 

PROPOSED LOCK AT LAWRENCE 


NOVEMBER 19,1913 


EDY/^RD C. SHERMAN 
CONSULTING ENGINEER 
6 BEACON ST BOSTON 



NOft/t/5 PtrtRS no.. WASHINOION. D. C. 












































































































































































































































































IS s-fi HoiToaa A-A MoiTDje 

f^B'- 


* • - ' •• 

,inui6r> xO X9»«3 ©fit oi bin 'mQ 

. . J .oVt ^cR 
































































longitudinal section on centre line of lock 


NOTE: 


Usable length of lock .... 350 feet 

Width of lock.•> 

Depth over gate sili.i-Q " ^ ^ ^ 

Elevations are referred to the Essex v^o datum 



eiff' zs.o 


H.W Lt¥*f 


K?^r| — - TL-_ 



“.- - 



•‘T .'e. VL-.*. 


131 


mm 


t/e*r /S o . , 

wWi ttnj r»iw ch^fnt 




section a-A. 


SECTION B-B 



COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 

MERRIMAC • VALLEY • WATERNVAY • BOARD 

WARD HILL LOCH 


O «0 20 M 40 5o 


NOVEMBER 19.1913 


EDWARD C. SHERMAN 
CONSULTING ENGINEER 
6 BEACON ST.. BOSTON 




House Doc. No. 1813 : 64th Cong.. 2d Sess. Stieet No. 3 


F£rc«s CO.. WASHINCTOn, D. c. 






















































































































































































a: 


'■f 




mym-. 


* /■ *.' 



V'./■'///a< 5 n /7 -— 

■ '. - A v.//'-'■ I •— 


■ &$// 11 =^ 




\ - ' -b- 




'44 



{.■ 




0 «€ .... M30I ^o rfi^nai eideaU 

- .?iool >0 d:fb(\y 

• 8^ ... . . Ilii »J‘sg navo H^qdQ 

mut«b oO xs^ec3 3hf od bana^^ai ai6 «noti^iavaJ3 


tJTOH 


rr": r^ki “. '• '' 

















% 


J a V.^-TSHIM -*!. ^ 9 ' .^ yt«»lit «0 


■ 

■v,Mj.*:' 




































House Doc. No. /<9/3 ; 64th Cong., 2d Sess. 


THS NORKtS RKTgRS CO. WASHtNCTOS. D. C 


































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































■ 


yy 

V- ^■,'^'^- 




'■ I 


'•a; 


W- ■■ -' I 

m >' 1 - 



yhM ' ■ - ^- - 


"r*^i r:;it,T^7 ■" [r.rr.f.-^■. ■< -■ - 



■j 44v;;"tt-:|-^"-^ ;^t‘*4^T'^ 


rrs^-•*-•}•■-vt ■f?>''t *»■' 


-r^-f 


I \ f '• • 1 •• ■ I I , » ' '■ I 


*■ iiy M ,? f ' ^ ^ 

L n-'tT'j T'i T'; :■ i;:- ■ I 

■■ V -t , - •■,- ' 'L. ' t I » . I 



'- I I/ . . I iit 4 A i » .i fcw4 ‘. hJ >'-i--±l:*4' 

. UXIinX _i- 4 _i 4 

mitt—]:t:pi 


r.-ij.;:! i .i,j 4 „ 

i t ' * i 

#**-«"'‘'r-^‘\ ■ 4"*^' 


1 

-4 


‘t: 


V T ttrir -' ■‘•■’tr4-: V-f -y-T- 

—^-.«* 




"‘'t "vj-^ -■>-■■ ^ - I .. .. - ^ 4 - r* - 4 't T* ^ 

1 ’ V( '■( * ' V ^ ' ’ ’ r -- ‘"^■■‘ 'V * '|-lV 

»-*4> *4^ ■*"?•■-*-+A-»■ •'-'•■ f* «i-xJ ;--i i 

.,,.,^74^* '. I. . ■ ■.., I:;-!-,, '! Ui.' 

—^ 4. .4 i I I t i li^ifcaAi^ 1 ' > 


r . .• ■ • • ; I ^ 

»** ^ -*«r ^ J -y>« 


4 : 


^^ 4 . I i 7 4 at.ii -4 

y- ■' ’--f ♦'4 . *^' »y ■ ^ A.-fi-^: 

i.».,fii4:.-4-n4 :...> l.4 :. 

\ •^") '. I . ■ '• ■! ' V ' 

■V ■ >^. -4 4i^-i.i: i4 

4 ‘ 


< .V r LI 


' » >• 

,..; !.4: -i.* 


' r 


'■ tW-r-'J I' -f - ^• 4 --’ • ^-*hi' 

'* ''y "» ' ' ' ! *» *i. •<***» " ’ly . I* ■» -- ''•■ -1 '• 



•*f !“•; -• 


i 9 ^ • r 

[it4. 



"V'K 


H**f •^ 4 '- 4"4 


““—r V i-T" 


' “'•f' 




!‘~TT 


I V-V) 


•: ,^ 44 ^ 4 ^ .rt}- 

.' fi 7 4 . V • 7 


( 

r • 


< ,^ll 


•1 *1 J|i •.( -•, 'j 
' ■ - :i^-4^— 


\ ;"* i -j •■>-■ 4 '*'^-‘'|- "■■■- t-- 4 - 4 't ^'4 •^'■ 

- ■ ‘ ^ ^ f 1 Vj-44.:4.,.:.., 

4 ' 


■ 4Tr’ ’ Ir "^ •'^1?-rFi 

* •-♦-*-Jf Jr -^ ■ j4- I 

■ f*- * ' ■ - ■T'\i4 

!■'i'i 

'' ■'" ^ 

^, * 1 W»*' 

ci-4 




.;_f. 


r**Hr • ~I t ' t; J' '-n*'" 4“ - • 









T • T 

- y I' ^ 

ti^ Ill ' ll) <^«4 •* 




■4- •44 ■' ?! ’~4't 

*• *** j***^*^-;^.** I', 

4;4 i : - h 4:i- ' " '' 


L.:i 


■^'r-TT' - .>*.4 , ,j, :^.. ». ■*:^i ,J r 

' ■■-* 1 1“' 1 » t -t •»} ' , t a 

~ J •» J.; * f*' ^ ^ 4 ' jT 


L 


: • ;. j '! 

r %• W,j.* 4 * 

- *1 ^ i^!r 




4 ^.’,r^. .~i.>d|itj 


^.r. A *.> AX4 i«wiirMp 

















































































































































WA R D El PA R T N/1 p_ 7 











V 

<i} 



CORPS OF rKir^lNEERS.U.S. ARMY 


‘Ao so* 


3% 


52-. 




25, 17., 


3a, 




M.,' 

' \ 32 a 


21, \ 2.6., 


\ 33, 


-A 


-0 7 


z 3 


O-o / 

<>l -0.| 

Xq 


«l 

0 

0 

0 

0 

P 

•> 

p 

07 

0 , 

1-4 

2| .....■---• 

,. -\S-5 

1 0 


.•'.VG'. 




14.7 

14.. 

15 i 

13, 

15., 


5,.....r.°- 07c-.. 0.^ Black 

-.»* / •• .. . • C»A^ 


Roc^ts 


. --Uzy la, O- 




t\.M. 


i-ij 


II. 
II. 





V 


'•i. 




i<s'i ■ 


P^' 


rh. ‘‘-3 


22 , 


237 \ 


27s 




r 


''Zf, 


-CX, ..■■ 0, 


17-5 I4-., 


23. 


K, 


.a-; 




"in. 


.Ifi’ 


I.IY 


■V ' ^ •*" "* 17.0- i'>''**- 

;c:0,7-- '“'0 ‘O'’ 

•I. -f . isi't.".:.. „--■ 

/."OO.;-.:-:- . 7;:, 

';?--■• i'^.-■■■|>-^- /'lift. 

..;■■ 

7''^- •- 

.. 

'13.7 14., . - 








•• {Iq* 


-0.3 Badg^rsio., 

''O” . 

‘ - .- "s , s 

' 7^ 313.^ ’’*3 5 

'7-« /g'-V.. . 

- S-1 -‘Mj/ 17«. .*• ••■ - 


/ li \ •‘i . 

A- 1 J .5 i 4 r- -- ID (rzY X . \ 

13, ,7 % 11 .,'- ■lirs-..:.’ “••■-O-.. 

, 22., Iji. ■•; 16.0 ,, (j \ ■-. \ 

Z!.. / 15.. I^s 15. -illi! -I.., ■-.. ,,_ 


'^-•.7 


"■i"’ 9r 


a. 


\:}\ 35--A -in 


. 20, 

24, 



s 


i 373 


Z3-i. 



34 * 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

■•••'2=3 




\ 


35*^ 

■■- 

\ ‘■*3 X 


. 

'lA ^ * %, 


i 






( 

7-7 

s 

% 




./ 

34 , \ 




'■■■ 2^3 I 
; < 


37-0 


--6!,'. 


i-o H- 


S-3 




■ 0 .. 


. 


A.3 


<32 


2.2 


0.0 


32 


1-4 




- 1-0 


-0.7 


VAR'N 14-MW. 

m 1515 \ I 


- 3.7 


2-1 


-a 


-u 


'15-. 


14.0 .-'l-i 


„ '-.. 11 . i 3 o l® 2 .'--J‘|^. . _- 145 ..:-,, 27^-' 


>j( PLUM ID. LIGHT 



tea 


24 , ^5i^ 

»i... 


42-49-00 


\57. O 


la,'- \ 


.-‘■'e IS. 


2 i-^-, !4. 


3. lo S-o--’’’ 'A 




17, 


13. 


2% 


?7o 


“l-'a 


27 


2-5 


i-9 R 


2 3 


r 




r 5 


3.0 


-4o 



-Q, 


6 ,.. 


o 




4. i 


0.3 


'•» ! 


lu 


H 




V ^ 

■° I ] ^ 

I-'' ° * 


0 




-f -0-1 


a-/ 


0 -, 


- 2.0 


- 0 -. 


07 


Oe 


0 


0.1 


0*0 


-4-2 


-ai 


-o.<, 





m 

.C.&G.S. 


A22iJ 




A 


vs* 


42-4330 


+ 


’^7=-4i 


TRIANGULATION STATIONS 

TABLE OF COORDINATES 

Stafion 

Latitude 

Departure 

Uescription 

North 

Soiitli 

East 

West 

I 

O.u 


Do 


u.s.c et G.S. 

m 

79! 0 


4152.1 



BlacK 

Rocks 

4556, 


£503-& 


«« 

255 


Z34&5 


3531-7 

’< 2 Uniti hole \n A jn 

ne-f €3ir*»irip tvfilN 

256 

4369s 



370i.7 

ftrpnil Hole in a in 

ledpe 


o/" croO.'^fcA>')€>-^^6 
sto-^-f-^7 &r^c/ o 

4*22 ,/0~29<57 

' vo*~so'~/z‘'oe 


\uor,^f^u 





(Tk 




1-3 




VVOODBRiDGES 


X 






ISLAND 


\ 


.-H-- 













“o 


/ Mc^HiMACP :x?: 


-<>- 




/ 


—J 




-^2-4eooy^“ 


V 




4 






UAWRCNCC 

- 







'JOVElAHO 



3UB-SKETCH 

MERRiMAG RIVER 





X' 









if*' /'u.^ 







" 1 .' 

'3, 



\ 


12 © 


••■ J4 

® ll.s 


/■7-1 


'X 

f 6 . 

''U 



\ fS^s / 


\ 

'3« 

t 

1 


“v 


I^s ! 


'1-^-3 

14 , 



S 

X 


iL'- / ®'4 


itz. 

'27 

/ 


Ua 

r 

■>-a / 


' 2 ^ 0 ; 

6y 



I 67 ) 


14, 


'S 


a., 


•tel.. 


1 ^ 


17,.-- 


13. 


>36,- 


/i77# "V 


2-1 


' .-■■■■ 7 X .5?" “z .iy 

fl .- ^7 

/ 21.. -■' 75-6 


: Sl-7 


'25, za. 





+ 


42243130 " 


SouncfJn^s •-— _ 

<SQun<:ftn^^ Str-e /n-f^et on<J ronr/rs ancf sno<^ 

H~t9 cfep'th o-T- Toc-ot mwon to^ m^oi’er'. 
fle.oc-A/r>a.'^>f»— . 

Ai- B/ocA /^ac*<sS Pt>9cnn(/S30) i 0 cfr'H! no/9 
Ue 9 p 9 C/ ' tn i-z^ira cours* 07 “ masonr-Lf, -^sc/n^ 
n/\^ 9 n f '9 9.2Z abo*>'9 /ocs/ mean k>>" wo-^a: 

Contouna^ — 

Ktaan V\.'ai-9r Ljoa tSun^^aLf o-F/S/S-M l ■ -■■ ■ 

B Tr. C<on-tc>ur' .— .. 

/2 »• " ..." 2 

ZA.' >* . .. ... — w 

30 »• ** '**’*“_Z- “ * 

T^~^m /ocai~/on o-n -nt^a/ /e-^7*. cnannai /a irn^-'ca-/~9d Pcf haa\n^ 
ii/acM /tnas- ^r~‘eaa cJ&*~n 

l^ons Mo*u'f'/~) on<y p^o/ /9'-/9.' <'2'// a£><iv'9 O.o ai- S/ac/^ A?ocAj> 
Pes»ctor->^ ana a/~to^n srsr-ojs abac/in^ tvfi-n/r-* firrt/i- hnea 

t>7® C*~-ann9/. 


SEAL 

ISLAND 




+ 



.A 




MERRIMAC RIVER 

MASSACHUSETTS 

With a view to secur-ing 
increased depth -Prom Lowell to the sea 
or in anL 4 part of this section of the river 


SCALE 



Of-f/ce, Boston, Moss. 
V^/77^eA/ ^/9Af. 

Approved 

ueut Co/. 




Survey made under the direction of Uieut Col WCCraighiil, 

Corps of Cn<}i..eers.U SArmn. 

Assistantsi-TTtTHarwood. Asst. Engr. ;KE.Warr9n. 

LTMurphu, LG Rowe. aRRo^erson.W.J.MSAuiiffe-donr. tngrs. 

EE-Tibbetts, SttBr.ooUs, Surveqors 

Field work of s-irveu. September 1913 to October 1914. 

sheet 1 OF 7 SMELTS 


Required bu OeC- 2, River and Harbor Act Julq 25.1912. 


; 64th Cong., 2d Sess. 


vj.RRo^erson.V/.J.M^AuTif t€, D«l 


tH£ NOR/ilS PETERS CO.. WASHINGTON, D- C 


































































































































































_WAR DFpartmfmt 





CORPS or FN GINEERS.U.S. ARMY 

o< 


\ 


Oo 


Oi 


01 


1 o ,1?3 


13-5 


U-£ 


jrr; 


■V 


TRIANGULATION STATIONS 

TABLE. OF COORDINATLS 


^ ■> IK 






-O 3 ..-V ^ 

,ock-J^39.. . 


Station 

Latitude 

Deoarture 

Description 

North 

South 

East 

WiBSt 

I 

Qo 


Qo 


U.5.C.flcG.5.A 

233 

76843 



15432.(1 

! 6 *dn!I hoi€ in in ledqo 

238 

69709 



1321 Ls 

concrete pc5+ 

marKed US.£. 

240 

6941.3 



13406.3 

Vtf drill hole /?T"41ri 

outcrop of IttdQC 

24 i 

51557 



127887 

M •» 

247 

240U 



I0262t 

‘/ 2 “drill note in top qra”r> 

ife ebut. B 8 cM.RR.bnd 0 € 

2-48 

51007 



10533a 

concrere F^T 

rcerKed U.St. 

250 

345 Li 



9681.6 

Vi*drill ncie in rop qranY 

iteabut 0&M RR. brjdqe 

254 

2578.7 



7163.7 

'A'cJrill liole in A in ledqe 

255 


2948a 


3531? 

^■'drill hole fn B 

in rcteinino wall 

256 

43692 



3701.7 

fe'drif 1 hole in A in iedcje 


,_ROCK 


-.23. 


r 

.. 

21 Y,_. 

-a;-L 


^ J5.-V_1 " ..^^ -■ ,, 1^7*“ 

.. . )4S:5^*-''■ - - 


H « 


la. 




.Ilv--J2.„ 


The Sires 05^ ccor''c//f~>&Te.s> sr*e 
a /ine r^urtnin^ Tr^e nGr^T/i stnd 
s<st-/-f-/~> af~)^ &/t'r'.e rt^ Tr'Lje 

etas^ She’ fcve^y*. 

j£.ah/Tc/c^c 7 


o 


B 


A- 


A24I 


. 3 O 


N 


B 





•V 




lA 


-07 


-Oi 


'13-4 




-O'* 


«v 


' f.Ki- 


Oo.- 




11 -e-, 


'I3-, 


■IZ^a: 


'■* ..-'?■c 


. Ss-(^'>.»3 


10-5 


W-o" 


10, 

fgA 






YVy 




<0 




/ 


X 






c 




V 




HAVE.RH 

CO^TV BR 




\ rB<Bn.jsto ' 
\ e .4»rf. cvkM 










. 4 . 4100 ^' i n 

,wacNc^- 




SUB-SKETCH 

MERRIMAC RIVER 


SCALE CFFEFT 

JO 000 .!0 00 c .w,w_ _ •io^o«o 


1 E.WKSSi^r 


1 





" “ ** '• •. .. ^.o-. . ♦• .. 

‘s 207 
27.'.,-, 20 . 


P-e 



I2.f - •• 


276/ 


■72-5 


<5 





-l2-»‘ 


203 __ 



Is 


0-* 


■^\ I, 


North 


O 5 


Oo 


u 


NEWBURYPORT 

R 


V 


o 

r*nt. Con^- Cn. 


So<y/3<7>.'^<5s :— 

Soun*y/nd-i sre /'^ -fstsT ann' -ten-t-hs and ^hc/w 
fhti c/epi'h o-f- /<jcg/ mc>in /ow' y</zii-er\ 

Sr.nchma'-k 

Ai .\iciv\/t>urL/por'i-i.l6VS\-. Top of n^uTmenT or si-one 
eps at main enTnance to Custom /-tou&e ts 
'~22.S9 aPo\re local mean /ovr vraten and Z3.09 
tt. obo'^e mean /few' waien at Biacts Rorhs 
beacon 

Con-tour's\-‘ ' , 

Mean M/^h Water Line (Sur'\^ei.f 0 7*/5>/S--A?)-—- - — 

tt. Contour . 

/2 •» '* .. *• 

/e •' ” .“*.’.7..’V..*.'‘.V.‘ 

/fl «• •• (Rock) ‘“*,*~'*Tr* * * *" 

. . . ^ Tfc//-y>,/ /fl tt—rharinei ia incite s ted bu ttGai^L/ 

imes nt c:t!.onnel- 



o 

Lo>v*r Cotto'i 
Mill C'ttrnneq 


Federal 5t Ch. 

O 


MERRIMAC RIVER 

MASSACHUSETTS 

With a view to securing 
increased depth from Lowell to the sea 
op In anq part of this section of the river 

?>CALE 


U S m^ineer' Office. Boston,Mass. 

. ^^No\/ifmi:>s/-kO, /9i-4. 
Appro<.'ec/t / 

i~^cut. Co/.^OOf^St ^f Cruz'S- 


Svjrveti nwJe under the direction of Ll«ul Col.W£Cr»ijhill. 
Corps of Eri§ine*r«,USArm^. 

As&fstants^-TTrtMorwood. Ass1 CogrtKEWahreh. 
ETMurphu.LSHowe.JRP&gerson.WJVrAuliffe.'J'Jhh Lnqrs 
■t E,Tibbett^SHerook^,Surveooi-3. 

Field wcrVi of suTveu, September i<)i 3 7 ,^ otfRP*'' l^l*- 


snEE-T 2 OF 7 SMEetTS 




Roouired b y 5 e'c. g.River end Harbor A^t. Jvjiy 2o.<9l2 ■ 
House Ccc. Ho. 18 I J 6-vth Co’’S- 2d 5esi. 


T«F UOFtttS P£'F/?5 CO.. WA'iHlNCTON. U. C 
















































































B*. T: .‘.r.'V i- V 4:- -.^ '. «i it ,ii> . .jmkiMBiI r. .-Z.** ^'*wV^4EsKh&.«V9.i 


I li 


r jiR ‘:?Ss 








■-.7->- 


r-v*‘i 


i%x*i‘TAs-ia 

?> ^ ilV • 


V ■' 


{ 








i *»??'■ - 


:^rv 


a 


■, V r ' 

/ • 


.- r 


‘ A. . 

1 


: , ■’> 




■'it''. 


j' 


</ 


i V 


• ' ‘7 'ij. ifi 

> ' _w .wa .p 


■^- V ■ '^>>*^'-^ < -'VM 

It iHMb / ^ >• 

- '% ■ ~ s^>v If'^-.' ' _ - ’ y ' 


> « 


*-^ -A 


j 


li^ 































CORP^F ENGINEERS 1 ) S. ARMY. 


TRIANGULATION STATIONS 

table: of coordinates 


EAGLE 

Lislano' 


APPROXIMATE LOCATION 
OF 0AM 


iSAlJSBiJiTr 


"yMEffR H,tAC 


'w^NgwBURr 




WRENCI 


J>AWI 


MERRIMAC RIVER 


AWTUCKCT ^ 
^ OAM-^ 


ANOOVER 


LOWELL 


MERRIMAC RIVER 

MASSACHUSETTS 


^Sound/naa ai-a in and ■* 

1?!b da/^n Bi- /oca! mean /b*v wa-t-ar. 

Ponoe^ mven (/90J) = a '^S. STcorn 
in cemmn* in a H ine/i '^Za^m<^er 

eas-fer'/t/ etfuTmen^ a-f ^'^9 y,Bten and 

is /a.e:' P-n ebo>^e loae/meanlo^ wa^ ;>od^^ 

19.91 fT. Bbd^ mean ioe, n>anaP ae B/acH 
£>9Bc&n. 

/denn vvai-ei- i^inelBun^a^/ - 

6* TV. Cori-f-Oiein 


With a view to securing 
increased depth from Lowell to the sea 
or in ang part of this section of The river. 


dam 


Survei^ made under' The direction oT Lieut.CotWLCrai^hiU, 
Corps 0 'fEn^ineers,LlS.ArmM- 
Assi3Tan+s:-TTMn«~wood.A5sTCn^n.M.C,. Warren, 
ELT.Mur'phLi.LGRowe.J.RRo^rson.WJ.M'Aulitte. Junr. Cngrs. 
F-C-Tibbetts. srtBrooks. Surveyors. 

Field work ot aurvoi^, Septeinber 1913 to October 191A. 

SMEEIT 3 OF 7 


ed at/ heavy 

v^dhinlimd 


Loce-nion oJ“ Tidal iO-TT /d^annai la ,r 
alanft //naa. .^r-aaa r'ecftjir-irid «vcav 
i-tor^S m'->a poof iZ-/'/ ~r 

/^ochs PBOcortt^r'B -aftown buf cr*os.s 
q-F cf-tmrtrtBf 


//riBO 


Re3u;Pgd btj 5eC;2^i^yer and Harbor Act.Julu25.1912 


an P/^er* son ,w. J. vr* Au li f f e. |T«». 




THF NOPtttS pe 


Ai 



. 9 ! 

SI 


,N| TEWKSBURr 

/ N' 

-1_ 



Station 

Latitude 

Departure 

Description 

North 

South 

East 

West 

226 

Qo 


Qo 


^V 2 *drS}ihote msrpnenw 

marked ArNo 

27A 


66863 


1092LS 

^drill hoteinAin boulder 

33 


4715s 


05873 

^'drin hole in A in 

qramie monument 

205 


25149 


754Qo 

'Ydriit hole inAin ledqe 

214 

1565« 



497Zi 

Concrete post 

marked U.S£i 

223 


13705 


2715s 

Vb'drUI hole rnAin ledqe 


H»dknda»l 

Oo 


Qo 


UaC9tG6.A 

233 

76M3 



I5432X 

Vt drill hole in Air ledqe 


































































































^4 


RAW 



21 




N'-'V’ 


•mm 


^»»'A 

f>v 


\ 






A 

I 




■yjJm •••« 


9 






' 


■..'V 

► 

\ 


•> 

n*' 


f • 

f 


j loO j j 

H ^-TT-"■^-^yiTTr^-^-r-rT~l • ^ ~ •* 




■^] 


t 

> ^ 


j; '**>«> <»»5T 

•;■ ■ ''* Ci'"* O% 

Jijjjrtt')'>v» ' H '"jifyJh <'>*'^a«!» 


/ 


-&<2^- 




i# 



















































WAR DEPARl'M^NT 


42‘-50'-0 0 


42^.3^30 ' 


42-49-00' 








N 






41-50= oof 


triangulation stations 

table of coordinates 

station 

Latifude 

iDeparture 

Description 

North 

South' 

East 

WIssT 

Stevens 2 

O .0 


Qo 


US.C&G.3.A 

36A 


29113 


2821.9 

Concrofe posT 
m*rhecJ UAEl. 

5 


553.® 


2681.6 

** St 

8 

1831.7 



28688 

♦* s* 

12 

2i9a2] 


4I2.I 


^‘orilj hoictnA fn . 

IS 

aw.a 


^31.s 


Vi drill hole in 


Lcnc ir«e 

tiiii 2 

O.o 

k- - 

Oo 


U5.C.&(iS,A 

23 


59flas 


54952 

drill bolefnA 

in ■♦'OP of boulder 

L_26._. 


4361.7 


125524 

E oncrc+e posf 
morKcd U^E.. 


A 


7"A)« dvc?^ ot*^ coor'o'/'/“-.:S'^<?jr &r^c* 

4^ f/r^e omd 

erf ///-><- r^c^ry/~t//-ia -f- r^c/ia 
e-«te'7*- ^->af vv«^y-. ^ 

^ La'fif^cjde 
S'f^e v^c.'TiS' 4? 

Lcn^-hLja^ 70-SS^2S.SS 
, ^ Lai~ituc/e ^2'SO-02^958 

i-ar7« TT-e* /*T‘/// ^ _ 


9s 


e 


MERR IMACPORT 


U; M 

^\\ 




+ 


.V-.. 

JJLj. 




— 


■3 - -a^a, '-. 1 .. 






. . lo" nv„ 11-, 113 '-•--_...^«.___!i2-U- 

r-. - ''^es/ ^ '?rr,.' Cp--^»g.r 14,° '^4 _J^.: 3SE 

A4--...,. ,.. 3 ... 16.4 , 

Ift , riSew^iMAcpoRT rSchs .'*^1 ..n - _ *' '^'-4 * •...- •*_* 


42-49=3tf' 





7-2 






'10-4 &'o _-y' 

J 


*<^2D ^‘-5 .••3e'»»<M*cRORT rZjchs » • ..I | *• _ *' 4 ..- ’ 

. .^5 •••• 1 :^..•-.... 


/ 


...*• * 6 ‘o 


2 -rf. 




T 


p ;/ 6 ,j 2 :, 0.4 i 

iCl • c -7 / 

•. 5‘i 4-4 / 

— > s| ^ *♦_ J 


, 3-0 / 

'^,' 7 ., ••• 2 ‘ 

0 .‘\ ^0 'Z'/ 

14\l6gt.\ f« . / 



- 0.5 






23 A 


\ 


V 





7-. 


As 

’•3 


75 



6^S 

-'■s 

»7 


6-7 

i^'V 

-3 

o-, 


'2-0 



4?i©i 


C3=:^-- ■ 




S-o 


xjl 


+ 


•e.. 


42-49=00' 


\ k / 


^ ; -ij • 


A 

Stevens 2 

(U.S.C «.G^J 




1 


All 


-Oc 


VILLAGE 


S.^4 


A 


42^*30' 


\ *•’^^ ^ t 1 * 

Va * \ 



V 





SALISBURY 


42i^ 


sue-SKETCH 

MERRIMAC river 


SCALE or 

taooc 70000 30i0tr> 40.000 





t 

/ 




u 


R 


So unc^/'/o^s'— 

SotJ/ocftn^ ar-« in ^as-f- ar>cf •fan'f’foa •oc/ «^w 
7^/>c* /oca/ mean /ovv wor-p-A*. 

Benc/iman/K : — 

/^y- .Poo/rj^ s « f> />>eA c/rit! ho/« "o 

y'n/on^/e c<jt 'n -fop ootun^e oy“ maaonnu n 
c/ot^-nsi-neam /‘ana o-f‘ cfnay^' p/en /a /SOS tt. 
3£'o»'c -ocel mean 4o»v v\'a/-en ancT/9.7S -ft. abo^'m 
rnoan iow v^a/cn a-f- B/acM i^ocMa t^aaccn 
Con’/'ca^r ''a 1 — 

A/ean Wo-i‘en i^ineiSt^^\'ao/ trf‘ ^ 903 )^ -—.- 

6 ?“■/•. Con-t^our' 

/2 • • -.-. 

/e »• «• ---- 

/B *• ** iBoc^) •—•—*— . .— 

<Loca'*‘-'on 01^ i^/a'a/ /Q-fr. cHartr>et ia •n^fca/'sci At/ 

bler.i< tine^. Aneas neq^jimnn €>rca\ a-t‘ion^ wi-f-h darr' aoova 

Lions AAocj'f'io and poo^ te^e/ /2.71 7*V. abov'a O .0 af Black 

/^oc/^v t>aacor>yan9 ano%A^n At, •jfmASa snacf-r^ v^fZ-bin i/m/Z- 
//nos oP cnanno/. 


( 


'*19/3-fAy- 


MERRIMAC RIVER 

MASSACHUSETTS 

With a view to securing 
increased dep-th from Lowelltothe sea 
or In any parf of f his section of the river. 


lJS.£n^/n&s'' O'f ice,Bosto/p,Mass. 

2^/^'nA^ri/0,i9/-4. 

Appnovec/' 


'7 . ■■>(■■,. 

4.\ \ i «’5 


-. ‘-0 4 


: 0 - 



SCALE 

- y - 




Surveti mede under The direction ot LieijT.ColWECraig|.,,u. 
Corps ot Engineers. US Armq. 

AssisTon+s -TThUiarwood. Asst. Engr.'.MEWorren, 

ET Murpm^. LG.Bowe, J.R Rogerson.Wd WAuht fe. Junr. Engr s.., 
t£TibbeTTs,s.nBrooks, Surveyors. 

Field worK ot surven, September 1913 to OcToDer 17 , 4 , 


^1 


7> 


7.4 


SHEET 4 or 7 SMEETS. 


House Doc. No. fQiS \ CofiK., 2d Sess. jRBo^.fooo. wuwAJ.rr*. [»'• 
































































































































































WAR DEPARTME.NT 


rn PPR OF QNGINFFRs.U.S.ARMY 



G R 0 V 


LAND 




LOWCLU> Vh'GHW-v sr 






SCH^rycfiry^s 9^^ in arxif i~9nr^^ 9r%d sf^ov^ 

•^A>« oV" /oc9f rr,9a/~i /ovv y^ot’er- 

■■-■ 

Sr-iape U9C3)' a</ii /nc^ cfr'iu Ao/« /r> 
^r'/an^a -f-^p cot-ir'se o-f- rnaaor\r'i-/ //o 

&oy‘'ns^-f'r'aom "face o-f- t^nayy pier' ta /ff.G9 ff. 
ato^^ /occ rnaan fo^r yyafen anp f^.73 f-f. 9t>c\re 
mear> foyy yyGfe^ SfacM Pioct^ baacc'r'i. 
Cor>-foLjr^a ■ — 

Mean/-f/^r^ ivafar' i.ir>a {S<jr'‘\yetj of ——— 

^ " ^ •• »-(•.- » i9f3-f4j - 

/2 ^ •* --- 

/e - •• OPoc*^) ----—*—*- 

7~f-ya /oca-f-or' of fx^af fS-f-f. cHaroaf /« trxjtca *-ao c>t/ 
ftaa-yt-t b^acff Unas, ^r'aaa aM'cra\^a-f'fcn, yytfr> 

dam aboy'a £-ton^ K^oi^fr-- aod po<r>/ fa\'af /2 '7i ff. abora O-o 
a-f OiGox ^oci<3 baac.'oo. a'^a be/ rr-'^oaa abac/io^ '^tfhin 

//mif //r>aa of ebartr^a/ 


-V 


<f' ^ 


TtWKSBL-RYi 


\ 


SUB-SKETCH 

MERRIMAC RIVER 




SCALE or rtET 

Hxooo 20.000 aftooo 4ofioo 





\ 






^ 1 / 


\ 

\ 


8 


U 


R 


V 


\ 

\ ^ 

o 




MERRIMAC RIVER 

MASSACHUSETTS 

With a view to securing 
increased depth from Lowell to the sea 
or in anu| part of this section of the river. 

SCALC 


US.Crx^inesr' Ofti<:e. BasXx-t Moss 
... L.yo >-/«W’B’f ^o. /9/v 

/ippnciyy^cf- 


Lieu^- 





Surveu made undet* -‘■^e direction L»eu+CotW.tCraidjKtn. 

Corps of dn^io^ers US^rmy 

Assistants:- T' HHsrwood.Asst Eln^r i HEWarren, 

C.TMurpnu.UGRowe.JPPo^erson.W JM‘Aul«f^«*^unr En^rs.. 

F ETtDbetTs, SJHBrooks, Survenors. 

Field work o* Survey. September 1913 to OctoHeh* I9i^ 

Sf^CET 5 or "7 SMEETb. 




Required bg 5ec^2, River and harbor Act Julq 25,1912 . 

/G/Q ^ J^«Od«re«r..W.JJ/*A-.f fe Oet 

House Doc. No. / ^I Cong., 2d Sess. 


T«> u •. «?: ro 




























































































L ■- . ■: ' ' ' A/. .1' ‘ •-. ,. : r. . ■ ' • . 




• L 


: T>>::iKrrqAq.3a''~'yiAw 



'•r^f 

A 

^ t „ 


,' ■• ‘ V . ■,, »>' 

^^■.0 ,0 .. 

J ■ - * . 

a 


rf 


.0 »s. 


y 5«. .^i 

;i«' s-' ft-N o*' ' — ■ » 7;y<' » j i ii . ' ffr |- • 

'"^■i'.:-\ , 5 *. r 

'*“•- * /li.i ^1* t 


..3 




- ■ '** 








































WAR DEPARTMENT 






cr 

8 

1 

*o 

fO 

>Q 



3 

Vi 

o 

b 

b 


o 

ff) 


o 


u 

h 

o 

• • 

F 

N 

o 

v. 

o 


CORPS Or£NGlNFERa u :=» ^pmv 




H A V E R H 


L L 


2 :s \ 



A. , 3 e 


»-iv 


BRADFORD 



42^-00' 


4^245-30 


H 


-<? 


i- 



A 




V., 




^^‘****"*^ “O'? 


•f*JN 




-o'* 

'Vs » 

''J \ \ 

‘ 1 ' 





o 


‘* \ 

V 


> 






-li 




V- 'K 


vS' 


3-2 *7, 


\ z ^ f 

'w 




V 0*» - 


-f- 




TRIANGULATION STATIo'nS 

TABLE. OF coordinates 


Latitude 

Departure 

Description 


Norlti 

South 

Last 

VWsT 

3tevens2 

Qo 


Qo 


USCA65.A 

60 


STSBs 


I068QC 

Concrete post-- 

marked USE 



Silver Hill 

Tower 

Qo 


Qo 


U5.C&<iS.A 

63 


31065 

17233 


tonnBiliserinanienlirA ' 

7IA 


46419 

172183 


14'drill hole m Ain nock 

76 


51125 

151455 


concrete pest 
marked Ua"^ 

79 


533So 

13274.1 


®* f® 

34 


33801 

125384 


»* *9 

85 


3065-4 

10836s 


99 99 

92 


I260J 

IOO 32 J 


99 99 

93 


469.1 

8105t 


0 ‘'neil in ^n^nub. 

SBA 

436t 


77332 


ironii.'icttiniiopcr qrar.-' 
ite retainino htjU 

109 


717.6 

46432 


Ccwicrete post 
morKed U6E. 


777® »>r®^ 07* COOT'c/ino-t-^^ or*m 
& //ne r-t.jnrytn^ •f'r'ue cna 

mr^c/ o iin& r^L/rtrtJrta 
anc/ w«^y-. 

s-f-e^sna P [l-Bt-i-tijcie ^Z-^‘-S7:39 

iyfe^sna z \i,ar,a,-tL^ae 70-sSZs:ss 

«: / ^ w/y -I- -- -J-Z-^e-iZ'eoS 

S/fver' ///// 7ow®/“ C ^ ^ 

Xi-on^i-f uefc 7/ 0^-00926 


+ 




\A 


rs-' 


-f 


xy 


Y/ , 

!•{ >0 /" e“7 ^ 

/1 jh 


Jj 


i 




<? 






I* MERRIMACI DRT' 


'N^ 






6^ ' 


^ *'-~-o., ^-7 “S'''. 


0» I - 

^ a, •> -> ' /.(J 4^ 


-a. 


"o A2*-5rf 


/ 




42U6'0 


C^ROVCLANC 
BRIDGE 


GROVELAND 

'-V 




A 


42^r.o- 


- 2 . 




o 




SUB-SKETCH 

MERRIMAC river 


SCAkE OF FEET 
lOkOOO g/K ico ywo 


so<^r,<piriSs-~ and TeFiF-fta Bnd show 

%7>ocdr%ssn 

Oh -hop 07" -hop O/CF- A/: eEsov'C 

Sfhsam side oA P^c! l7-^ ^t. oPo^s 

locBl msan low Pod^^ beacon. 

noBon ,ow '^^ 7 -mr ot d-d ^ ^ 

A* :-io^pmr~hlil -A^g® Top 

in t-niongie '''yPf^ feat o-f abut- 

coor-sm ot br'i^aa^ mean tow 

mnni- is 2 Z. 73 th d^^^^^^ c^ean low wBf-Bn 

'ZT's^aoTMooKs PBSoon. 

Co/oAoiy/-jr'j^^^ wai^i" „ /slS^ - 1 

e -hr. Contoun ~^.Z. "Z. 

Location oftidal ^^Z2f^f7oni7iih^p£^J^>'e L^n^ 

beacon, -^na shown bw ‘^'7= 

©y* cA-istnryc/. 


4. 


<?- 


C 


G 


MERRIMAC RIVER 

MASSACHUSETTS 

With a view to securln^J 
increased dep+h from Lowell to the sea 
or in any part of this section of the river. 


SCALE. 

^ wco 


=c=3"’' 


'«! CJS.E’n^inaer' Otfics, Boston.Mess. 

_J.V-, il.. ^ftrrt^dh h Cl I9U. 

^r--V-> '•O.j Appno^BdY^:^ 

V Umut Col. 



Survew mode under ttie direction at Lieut. Col.W.E-Crelghlll. 

Corpsot engineer® US-Armci 

AssisTonTS:- TTHHanwoocLAssT. Cngr.illCWonren. 

E-TMurpng, L6Re®®» d-R-Po^erson. W JM"Auiit te, Junr Cn^rs.; 

F.E.Tibt>aTts.SrtBnooks Surveyors. 

Field work ot survey, September ei.3 to October 1914. 

SMtET 6 OF 7 SMEELTS 

Required bH Sec. 2, River and harbor; Act July 25,1912. 


THS HOUKIS PCTC/fS C0.. WAsHinOTbM, D. c. 












































































































































































































































































































♦A- 




\ 


J J I H H 



A ‘-"Cif. 




\ 





■f 

I*. 
























WAH UL-t-^/AI-l I IVIL-IN I 





\\o 

‘..m 

♦ ;ni 

//^ 

rro 

> lO 


/ 


+ 


CORPS OFLENGINEERS.U.5.ARMY 


:? 


42'4«-30 


'N 


w 

I 


y 


\ 


/ 


-<1 


V 


% 

\ 






\ 




. :^v 


^ \7'^ *4 .|7-. CISTANLEY lSl-ANp_.-' 

x ■:'-■■- -a. 

^6 . J4v ^ 0| 

V 4. n. ‘‘'A : -0-5 




- 2 ., 


^JlZ^/,7VA/^ 




42=46^X5" 


+ 


( proposed by 
-< MERRIMAC valley 

{ WATERWAY BOARD 


\ 


\ 


\ 


\ 


\ 


N 


!< 

0 


\ 


\ 


\ 


\ 


\ 


/ 


\ 



Silver Hill Tower 

(us.c. a o.s.> 

R/n^ ao/'f- RocM(/9/^) : « £?'/'//'' /70/« 

in c/yf^e'^cf SLj'^foce 

Rin^ ao/r fRocH is G.se’Ft-. ^co! 

m*mn /ow y^S’t-^r- ^na /0.92'^ m^mn 

io^' ^s-f-er o-f- B/ach RtX'Ms bsscon. 

-foo-f- 07* M&z^Q./^r>s Rspfas-{/9/A)''. pmaf< 
pt^nomt^oi e>pctx o'f boui&9f^ /n ar'oup 
tyoi^/c/er^s 04A <9ot^’t-h t>onh ot* 

3.3S stboiyc /oca/ m^an /oiv ^va-f-ar^ ar>^ 

^i- at-o^a maa.n .to>v o-f- B/ocM 

RocMs bsacon. 

aJa n&aa o-»“ /-la-x.a/’f-tna Rap</a(/ 9 /^)i 
pcrt-f /na/Ca o-fi •/'t^ianO/^ ■(funr^t^n<^/f~»S ^ 

///7c/> c^r'/// /~>o/e on paaP o-G bou/e^cn on 
coo-AA banh: oi* n/yan ia ^~h. at>cjva /ocai 

maan /ow anp /0.9JS stov^ maan 

fo-^ v^ai-an a-*- B/ac/^ Roct< oaacan. 

At poo/ t>a/ov^ -fooi- Mitcha/Zs Aa//*(/9/^) 

a / incti Pni// tic/a in /anpa bou/acn in Banh 
at- Y^at-an Una is *.SS -tt. abpya /oca/ 

maan /ow y^at-an anp / i.OA -f-r. apova maan 
/oyy yyat-an at- B/acM RocRa t>aacon. 


HAVERHI LL 


bradforid 


TRIANGULATiON STATIONS^' 
table of coordinates 

Station 

Latitude 

Departure 

Description 

North 

South 

East 

West 

Silver Hill 

Qo 


0.0 


U.S.C.a65.A 

loa 


3I8.5.C 


68.6 

Ccrorete post 
marked U.S.E.. 

109 


7176 

4643.2 



1 16 


1142.4 


4420^ 

Stone monuinarit 

marked M.H.B _ 

119 


33*5,8 


23093 

marked U.5.EI. 

\22 

131.4 



6379.1 

1 

127 

1 590.0 


7275.6 

'• " 



O, ' -ov''^ 


L- 


- ii A>r-- 

-0-7 z-A V* 




* A 


4^ 


rn 


/ na a>res> o-/ v'-r'-- 

a //na r-c/nnin^ -f nua ^’1°- 

sou-tn #//ne r'cjnnin^ i-r-^o 

egas-T*- 0/-JC' ^es-f"- 

Silver-i-lil/ T-mver- vr-Oe'-Oa'eze 




42^45^30' 


-\ 


-f 


—1— 




R 


VA 


42^45-30' 


f 

// 

! / 


': 5 : 


C 




\ 


\ 










A? 


r 


^WERPIMAC; :!RT 


-J 


USSU*?' \ 

e- 


/ 


«-eu*NO B* 

^»OVEl.ANO 









3UB-SKETCH 

MERRIMAC RIVER 


"aWii= 


SCALE OF FEr- 
10.009 2^000 


Sccjnp/'n^& •-— 

.SoLin^:^ n<^2 

•t/ia Pap-^ 

C/ontou. ^t-f/^/^ MVar-an t-tnaiSuc^i^LfO-f^J^B)^ 


ana /n ^aa-f- ar'C i~an-*-.'^ &nP anpyy 
5-^ ipco/ maan feiA' ■Y^-atTn 


i 


"m'l4)- 


G'* 

/2 •• '* , ■’‘,’'*.c:.i:.__ 

/Q - ♦» (Room) 

Loca-r/on ©y -tto'at cnanna! >s tnO'COtaC bp b/acR 

Unas. Anaas nfi>pte.-i'~'.nO axca'v'a't.-ony^^yith dam abova i—tons 
/Aou-t/1 and pod /a\^/ /2.'7/ '^'h abov*. Oo RocHa bea<i.on., 

ana 's/^o^n Bty cnoss s'tadin^ YYrt-nm > mi*- Zincs o'** channa/. 


US-^-nCinser Office. Boi^fon.Mass. 

-4ppr'ov4«cr'HVCr^ , 

Lieu-f- Ce'.'Cae'p pf Bn^ns. 


MERRIMAC RIVER 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Wi+h a view to securing 
Increased depth trom Loweli to the sea 
OP In anp part o+ this section ot the riven 

SCALE 



Surveu mode under rhe direction of Lieut Cot V/ECraigtii 11. 

Corps O'f Engini ers^US Ar*T^q 

AssisTanTs'.-TTfiript'wood, Ass+- rlCWarren, 

ET.Murphu.LGRow-, JRPc^er3on,W.JM*Aul'fte, Junr. Engrs.; 

r.E.TibCierTs, Sh.3i-ojks. Sorveijors. 

he'd Aork cf surveu. SeDTenrter 1913 to October 1914 . 

SHEET 7 OF y SHEETS 


M 


THf NOttaiS tCTERS CO.. WASMINCTON. O. C. 



















































































































■> • 




. 




•V 


■'« 


4jft./.‘j ■« IfV' 

• ►,<* 

' ' ^ > ■; 


V 


■•A. 





'v 


















